In the literature on emergent populism and nationalism in post-communist Eastern Europe, two main assumptions regarding the origins of the phenomenon can be distinguished. One line of argumentation holds that the unexpected resurgence of populism and nationalism after the collapse of the communist regimes is a direct result of the ‘valley of tears' that characterizes the post-communist transformation from a communist, centrally planned system, to a democratic, market society. The ‘social costs' of the transition and the still ‘incomplete' nature of modernization make a large number of ‘modernization losers' susceptible to mobilization by populist movements. The emergence of populist, nationalist movements should be understood as a radical form of protest against the degradation of the quality of life and widespread social dislocation and unemployment. A second explanation for the phenomenon is that populism and its naturalist, exclusivist portrayal of the nation is the result of the re-emergence of deeply, culturally ingrained perception of social belonging, and of the foundations of the polity, in which the social whole is considered prior to the individual, and in which local culture is valued differently from Western culture. In this explanation, the structural difference between Eastern and Western Europe is emphasized, a difference that can only be overcome by the former adopting the political model of the latter.

Both lines of argumentation – the modernizationist and the historical-determinist ones – point to similar solutions for the manifestations of ‘tribal nationalism' and ‘atavistic ethnocentrism'. Both ultimately argue that these phenomena can only be overcome through the adoption of the ‘right' institutional structures (the legal-procedurally based political institutions of Western European states), and, in general, through the adoption of a ‘civic' form...