58 rT ansitional Justice and Democratic Consolidation in post-communist aE stern uE rope: Romania and Albania. one-lane dirt road that used to wend between area studies specialists and comparativists has, at last, become a multilane interstate (Cohen 2000: 21). Initially, authors such as O’Donnell and Schmitter (1986) focused on the importance of political leadership decision-making and reforms of legal and institutional framework in trying to establish the rule of law. On the other hand, and of great importance for the transitional justice debate today, was their impact on exploring the past and how that was conducive to democracy and rule of law. These matters because the end goal of transition process is to reach the stage of democratic consolidation, which for authors such as Stepan and Linz is the “clear hierarchy of laws, interpreted by an independent judicial system and supported by a strong legal culture in civil society” (Linz & Stepan 1996: 10). The literature on transitology thus filled an important vacuum in the study of democratization. Whereas prior theories in the field focused on structural factors like socio-economic conditions for understanding the transition, with time, transitology opened the door for the introduction of top-down, elite-driven models that led to new transitions.2 The more recent debates focus on how a combination of comparative politics with area studies specialists (Saxonberg and Linde 2003) can balance deep knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of specific case with an appreciation of the wider context can enrich our knowledge of democratization. In addition, some recent studies have tested hypotheses that link the transition trajectories with transition outcomes, in terms of success and failure (Guo & Stradiotto 2014). They pinpoint the fact that, when there is a kind of elite pact, democracies are stronger and last longer (Stepan & Linz 1996). Pioneering works, dating many decades prior (Lipset 1959) have noted, on the other hand, a strong causal connection between economic well-being and chances of success of democratization. Both of these preconditions, are affirmed time and again in the most recent literature (i.e. Acemoglu 2014). It also is important to keep in mind that, if fragile democracies are to have a shot at consolidation, they should develop strong institutions and become more accountable as Larry Diamond (1999) reminds us. Furthermore, it is of great importance how transitology and democratization studies take into account the newly emerging sub-fields that are both interdisciplinary and empirically rich, such as transitional justice. Below, I give a short overview of the main conceptual debates in the field, to be followed by how transitional justice has taken root in former communist Eastern Europe and how this can help us understand successful transitions and democratic consolidation. b. Debates in contemporary Transitional Justice The transitional justice field has long been interested in how dealing with the past effects’ democratization. From the early days, debates have raged between retributivists who argue for criminal prosecution following mass violations of individual and collective rights (i.e. Drumbl 2007) and restorativists who rely mostly on “soft” ways of dealing with the past, such as truthtelling (Markovits 1995; Teitel 2002, Wiebelhaus-Brahm 2010). Others offer even a more holistic view, i.e. Alex Boraine (2010), in advocating or championing a multi-faceted transitional justice process. Yet others have noted finer differences, adding reparative conceptions of justice alongside the others (Muddell & Hawkins 2018). A common thread in most transnational justice debates is that the end goal is a consolidated democracy that somehow settles the problem of missing justice and closes the wounds of the 2. Other authors have criticized the dichotomy between consolidated versus non-consolidated democracies (Merkel 1998), focusing instead on different layers that range from constitutional framework to civic culture, but I find this overly broad and fuzzy. Also, other scholars have criticized the consolidated democracy terminology as an overstretched concept that suffers from diffusion (Schedler 1998), but for the purpose of the present study, I define it as a democracy that matures to the point where it is impossible “to revert to authoritarism without an external shock” (O’Donnell 1996).