Lessons learnt - political transition in the eastern neighbourhood

The EU’s eastern neighbourhood is characterised not by linear democratisation but by highly differentiated and dynamic regime trajectories, where democratic progress, stagnation, regression, and authoritarian consolidation coexist. This finding reflects broader debates in the comparative politics literature on the “grey zone” between democracy and autocracy, where hybrid regimes display both democratic and authoritarian features (Bolkvadze 2017; Procházka and Cabada, 2020). Developments across the six countries have been marked by heterogeneity rather than convergence. Two countries – Azerbaijan and Belarus – exhibit sustained authoritarian trajectories, characterised by the consolidation of executive power, systematic repression of opposition, and the erosion of political and civil rights. In contrast, Armenia, Moldova, and Ukraine display trajectories of democratic progress, albeit fragile and uneven. Georgia occupies an intermediate position, marked by earlier progress followed by more recent democratic backsliding. These divergent pathways underscore the importance of domestic political configurations and external pressures in shaping regime outcomes, a point consistent with broader scholarship emphasising the interaction between internal and external drivers of democratization (Levitsky and Way 2012; Rød et al. 2020).

Despite this variation, the six countries share a set of structural challenges. First, none of the six countries has achieved a fully independent, transparent, and accountable judiciary. Weak rule of law institutions remain a central obstacle to democratic consolidation, reflecting entrenched patterns of elite control and political interference. Second, all countries have experienced, to varying degrees, restrictions on freedom of expression, often exacerbated by disinformation campaigns and external influence, particularly from Russia. Third, oligarchisation and corruption emerge as pervasive features across the region, shaping both democratic and authoritarian systems. Political power is frequently concentrated in personalised networks, enabling elites to maintain resilience despite economic or political crises. Within this structural context, the “virtuous triangle” between citizens, civil society, and political elites emerges as the key determinant of democratic outcomes. Democratisation is most likely to occur and be sustained when these three components align in support of reform. This finding resonates with classic theories of democratisation that emphasise elite - mass coalitions (Sato and Wahmann 2019), while also incorporating more recent insights on the role of organised civil society as an intermediary actor (Bernhard et al. 2020).