With a few exceptions (e.g. Russia, Serbia, and Belarus) the post communist nations of Eastern Europe have become thriving capitalist democracies despite the economic depressions that most experienced in the 1990s. But was this meant to be? Could Poland, Slovakia, Romania etc. have gone the Russian route of strongman rule?
Hm. What is the question, could they "avoided" a thriving capitalist route or the to embrace strongman authoritarianism?
Anyway:
Serbia is special: they had a nasty civil war as Yugoslavia, wich delayed and threw back any progression. But after the delay, without closely following serb politics, they are on the same tracks as the rest of the herd.
Oh, and lets not forget, Croatia had similar issues, with Tudjman and his party i cant remember.
And lets foret Bosnia...
Belarus... standard post-soviet soviet state. Just check out the former soviet stans, the Caucasus, hell, even Ukraine. The latter differ only that they had some kind of "two-party" authoritarianism, at least until the troubles.
And no, the Balts despite the were soviet republics, are anything but post-soviet states. (And yes, neither was half of Ukraine).
But, lets go further, Slovakia had Meciar, the Polish politics were interesting too, we have Viktor, Romanians had.... who was that asshat in the 90's?
Long story short, its a process. And not a linear one. As long as the strongmans are in a general sense elected, and could be voted out, who cares. Just like Helmuth Kohl or Margaret Thatcher.