Democracy, nationalism and (lack of) sovereignty: the complex dynamics of democratisation in unrecognised states^†

Abstract

Unrecognised states are among the least likely candidates for democratisation: they tend to be driven by ethno-nationalism, many are marked by the legacy of war and most are facing international isolation. Nevertheless, the claim to democracy has become a central part of their legitimising narrative. This article examines this apparent paradox and finds that neither ethno-nationalism nor nonrecognition represents insurmountable barriers to democratisation. However, what we tend to find in these entities is a form of stagnated 'ethnic democratisation'. These findings throw new light on the relationship between democracy and nationalism; they highlight the importance of (lack of) sovereignty; and they are used to evaluate Sammy Smooha's concept of 'ethnic democracy'.

Playing in the sandbox: state building in the space of non-recognition

“…49 Fear of setting a precedent, a desire to maintain the status of the international order, regional security considerations, deference to regional organizations or powerful actors, and aspirations for political rebuilding in parent states are just some of the considerations surrounding nonrecognition. What is important to remember, though, is that unrecognised states predominantly emerge out of conflict or territorial breakup, and that their lasting existence proves that they have built institutional and ideational 'states' in conditions in which 50 They tend to be long-standing stable entities.…”

“…5 This final point highlights commonalities amongst the wide variety of entities considered to be unrecognised states: they are engaged in the complex sociopolitical process of statebuilding. 6 Interestingly, within the definitions who wants independence -the population or the political elite -is not clearly addressed, and as Pegg concedes, it is 'extremely difficult to discern what a movement's true goals really are.'…”

“…There are no concrete or static rules as to how this recognition takes place, and indeed, as Caspersen notes, the rules of recognition have changed over time. 13 However, in discussions it is generally noted that full recognition means acceptance by a 'critical mass' of states, 14 or the opportunity to join international institutions, such as the UN or institutional legal frameworks, as a full state member. 15 Lack of sovereign recognition brings significant detriments for the entities in question and their populations.…”

“…international recognition of sovereign statehood rather than recognition of the existence of a political entity. 12 However, vague and inconsistent legal and quantifiable standards and precedents surround how much recognition, and by whom, equates to the granting of sovereignty. There are no concrete or static rules as to how this recognition takes place, and indeed, as Caspersen notes, the rules of recognition have changed over time.…”

De Facto States and Democracy: The Case of Abkhazia

“…Until now, research on de facto states has been mostly conducted by political scientists or specialists in the field of security studies, international relations or area studies (Pegg, 1998;King, 2001;Lynch, 2002Lynch, , 2004Kolstø, 2006;Popescu, 2006Popescu, , 2007Berg, 2007;Kolstø and Blakkisrud, 2012;Caspersen, 2008aCaspersen, , 2009Caspersen, , 2011Caspersen, , 2012Protsyk, 2009;Caspersen and Stansfield, 2011;Simão, 2012;Pegg and Berg 2014). Contributions by political geographers deal with particular problems of de facto stateness.…”