This study explores the literature on factors favorable to democratization. It is argued that there has been a domestic dominance, with international factors a forgotten dimension. It is also argued that the limited body of work dealing with international factors has been empirical in nature. This study sheds lights on one international factor in democracy promotion. The theoretical contribution of this study is the presented analytical framework for democracy promotion. The analytical framework consists of actors, interests, methods, channels, relations and impact. It is argued that, within a specific time-context (setting): (1) There are actors (2) that may promote the democracy norm and reinforcing interests. ( 3) They may use different methods of pursuing their interests and (4) that may be channeled towards domestic actors. (5) This may create certain relations and (6) have different impact on domestic actors. The empirical aim of this study is to illustrate the analytical framework. The empirical contribution is to provide an improved understanding of democracy promotion and democratization in postcommunist Europe. This is done by analyzing the role of the EU as democracy promoter in Slovakia, Belarus and FRY from 1995 to 2003. The analysis illustrates different interests, methods, channels, relations and impact between the EU as democracy promoter and the targeted states in Slovakia, Belarus and FRY.

Ukraine and Belarus are two post-Soviet states and neighboring countries that, to some extent, demonstrate successful and failed democratization respectively. The purpose of the study is to, based on a theory-consuming approach, investigate which deep structural and proximate actor-oriented explanatory causes may constitute prerequisites and/or obstacles for democratization in these countries. The empirical material draws inspiration from Lachapelle and Hellmeier (2022), from which the explanatory factors are borrowed. The factors are categorized in this study based on relevant theories that Møller and Skaaning (2013) have outlined. Of the deep causes, Belarus' high degree of modernization speaks for the country's good conditions for democratization. Despite Belarus' superiority in the modernization factors, Ukraine has advantages in other deep causes, above all the very strong civil society. In Belarus, there is a lack of proximate causes that can favor democratization, while Ukraine has very favorable conditions – albeit with a high degree of corruption. The study confirms the hypothesis that deep and proximate causes co-vary with each other and with the outcome, but also contradicts, to some extent, an absolute relationship between modernization factors and other deep structural causes as well as the causal direction between proximate and deep causes and suggests an opposite causal relationship. Deep structural causes in combination and interaction with proximate causes determine the development of democracy in these countries. No single theory alone can provide answers to our questions.