Post communism: democratic break through & consolidation of liberal democracy

This reading raises several concerns regarding the types of democracy and the process of democratization not only in the postcommunist world but in general as well.

1. Opposition to the authoritarian regime vs. Favor of democratic regime
In thinking about the transition to democracy, does a state become a democracy (or have a democratic breakthrough) because it tries to escape from the current authoritarian system or because it has the desire to move toward democracy? In other words, is democracy just one of many possible regimes for those who are trying to overthrow the current authoritarian regime? ("Heart of the matter was getting rid of unpopular and deeply dishonest incumbents, not backing some specific new set of policies or reforms"-McFaul) or is there a conscious pull or gravitational force from the democratic regimes (what McFaul describes as prodemocratic pull) from the West, aided by the domestic support?

2. Democratic breakthrough vs. consolidation of liberal democracy
Is democratization a gradual process or does it necessarily require a powerful breakthrough as discussed in McFaul's article? McFaul's article goes on to discuss the seven specific common factors that contributed to the successful democratic breakthroughs in three cases but goes on to state that those breakthroughs are only a start that cannot go on to consolidate democracy on their own. What is more interesting about these breakthroughs, however, is that all three cases assume the existence of electoral democracy (or the mere existence of elections for that matter), since, for an election to be fraud, it has to exist in the first place. Relating back to Zakaria's, Diamond's...etc articles, does this mean that elections are in fact the basis for democratization? (McFaul explicitly dismisses other economic, social factors as playing an essential role). McFaul further provides unessential factors and I was rather surprised to see him dismissing economic factors: "it was a purely political factor-vote fraud- that set things off" (McFaul) as apposed to Howard who acknowledges the role of economic stability/higher standards of living as the foundation for further democratization.

3. Institution -> values/traditions vs. values/traditions -> institution?
Comparing McFaul's piece with the one of Howard's then brings back this question discussed earlier in the course. For McFaul, it is the democratic values developed among the people that eventually change the institutional structure. But Howard argues that it is the communist and later postcommunist institutions and people's experience within them that prevent those people from actively participating in the civil society and organizations: "the prior regime type is by far the most powerful and statistically significant factor" (Howard) This also relates to our discussion of social capital and its vital role in a civil society as well as the decision to condemn the communist system rather than the people's lifestyles and personal histories.

4. Democratization vs. sovereignty/nationalism
In response to Hassner's piece, we should consider this dilemma between democratization (term often associated in "nation-building") and sovereignty (and its relation to nationalism). This discussion is important as it has an implication in discussion regarding humanitarian intervention in non-democratic states as well. Furthermore, considering Russia's desire to restore its power, which is more preferable: strong, autocratic state? or weak, democratic state?

5. Domestic pressure vs. international pressure toward democratization
Domestic factors: nationalism, corruption reported by the media, desire to restore power and legitimacy...etc
International factors: pressure from the democratic West (might even seem like a threat)
Which plays a greater role? this is important for determinig the mechanism for democratization.