How, 30 years on, is post-communism doing?
I’ve
been living in Bulgaria and Romania since 2007 – for a decade I enjoyed crossing
the Danube, with the last 100 km stretch of the drive on the highway through
the Balkans and the sight of the Vitosha mountain which dominates Sofia always bringing
a particular thrill.
The
last post focused mainly on the Sofia street protests of the past 3 months –
with a brief reference to the fact that only in Romania has the Crowd succeeded
in toppling governments – three times in 30 years…and twice in the past five
years.
This
post looks at what two recent books by well-known authors born in these
countries have to say about the “progress” the two countries have made since
1989 and considers the prospects for effective change
In the 1990s
there was an interesting body of literature known as “transitology” which was
effectively a retraining scheme for those in redundant Soviet and Eastern
European studies University Departments as they tried to adjust to the new
reality of “liberal democracy” and “free-market capitalism”.
The
integration of many of these countries into the European Union seemed to leave
the others in a state of suspended animation – still “transiting”.
Except that
the “integration” had not gone as planned – some countries (such as Hungary and
Poland) had clearly reneged on their commitments and were challenging the “rule
of law” canons; and others (such as Bulgaria and Romania) had been unable to
satisfy the monitors that they had even got to the required judicial standards.
Indeed Philippe Schmitter, one of the doyens of the field, went so far in 2012
as to talk of “ambidextrous
democratisation”
Bulgaria's
world-renowned political scientist Ivan Krastev has (with
US Stephen Holmes) written one of the surprisingly few books which
attempt to assess the fortunes since 1989 of the eastern countries – although
it’s primary concern seems more that of “the crisis of modern liberalism”. It’s
entitled "The
Light that Failed – a Reckoning” - published last year, with the
Bulgarian translation appearing next month.
The book
starts with a chapter on the psychological effects on central European
countries of the “imitation game” they were forced to play and the demographic
shock as millions left the country for a better future elsewhere; followed by one
on how Putin’s Russia moved on in 2007 from imitation to “mirroring” Western
hypocrisy; a chapter on Trump’s America; and a final one which takes in China.
The authors
argue that part of the nationalist reaction in Hungary and Poland was the shock of realising that the European
"normality" they had hoped for had been transformed into an agenda
which included homosexuality, gay weddings and rights for Romas. But their
emphasis on the “psychology of imitation” totally ignores the brazen way west
European countries and companies exploited the opening which the collapse of
communism gave them to extend their markets in both goods and people - with the
consequences touched on in the first post and brilliantly dissected by
Alexander Clapp in a 2017 New
Left Review article “Romania Redivivus”.
Talk of “transitology”
disappeared more than a decade ago and was absorbed into the Anti-Corruption
(or governance integrity) field which grew into a "name and
shame" industry - complete with league tables and Manuals. But the world seems to have perhaps grown weary even of its talk…
Alina
Mungiu-Pippidi is a Romanian social psychologist - appointed, in 2007, as
Professor of Democracy studies of the prestigious Hertie School of Governance
in Berlin - with a unique understanding and knowledge of the issue. This was her blunt assessment in
2009 of the situation in Romania
Unfortunately, corruption in Romania is not only related to
parties and businesses, but cuts across the most important institutions of
society. Romanian media has gradually been captured, after having been largely
free and fair at the end of the 1990s. After 2006, concentration in media
ownership continued to increase in Romania. Three owners enjoy more than
two-thirds of the TV political news market.
At the end of day, “democracy promotion” succeeds by helping
the domestic drivers of change, not by doing their job for them. Only Romanians
themselves can do this.
It is,
however, Denmark to which most countries (according to Fukuyama) aspire to –
although a study of its history suggests that, contrary to Dahrendorf’s
optimism, that was more like a
100 year journey.
Her description of her own
country, Romania, is quite damning –
·
From
2010-17 there were 600 convictions for corruption EACH YEAR – including 18
Ministers and one Prime Minister, Generals, half of the Presidents of County
Councils and the Presidents of all the parliamentary parties
·
The
Prosecution system became thoroughly politicised through its connection with
the powerful intelligence system – the infamous Securitate which was never
disbanded
·
The
level of wiretapping used is 16 times the level of that used by the FBI
·
Romania
heads the league table of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights dismissed
for breaching the right to a fair trial – with a half of its cases so failing
·
The
annual CVM reports on the country are always positive and make no mention of
any of this – on the basis that “questions about the intelligence services are
outside our remit”!!
·
TV
stations run by those convicted of corruption have provided damning evidence of
the prosecution service threatening judges and fixing evidence
One of
Romania's most famous political analysts gave an extensive
interview a couple of years ago which was
important enough for me to summarise as follows –
·
the so-called “revolution” of 1989 was nothing of the sort –
just a takeover by the old-guard masquerading in the costumes of the market
economy and democracy
·
which, after 30 years, has incubated a new anomie – with the
“social” media dominating people’s minds
·
“European integration” has destroyed Romanian agriculture and
industry - and drained the country of 4 million talented young Romanians
·
After 30 years, there is not a single part of the system –
economic, political, religious, cultural, voluntary – which offers any real
prospect of positive change
·
Even Brussels seems to have written the country off
·
The country is locked into a paralysis of suspicion, distrust,
consumerism, apathy, anomie
·
No one is calling for a new start – let alone demonstrating the
potential for realistic alliances
Dorel Sandor
has clearly given up on the politicians and confessed to a hopelessness
for
the prospect of any sort of change in his country
“The stark reality is now that we do not have political parties
any more. The Romanian political environment is in fact an ensemble of ordinary
gangs that try to survive the process and jail and eventually save their wealth
in the country or abroad. That's all! Romania has no rulers. It has mobsters in
buildings with signs that say "The Ministry of Fish that Blooms".
One of the reasons why the EU is not
too concerned about us is that it is that they reckon that you can only reform
a driver with a car that works. We are a two-wheeled wagon and two horses, a
chaotic space, broken into pieces. What's to reform? So it's a big difference.”
But he was
least convincing when he tried to offer a way forward
I have a list of what to do –
starting with the need for an exploration of what sort of Romania we should be
aiming for in the next few decades. Such a process would be moderated by
professionals using proper diagnostics, scenario thinking and milestones.
It would be managed by a group with
a vision emancipated from the toxic present.
I have a lot
of sympathy for such approaches – embodied, for example, in the "Future Search" method. But
effective social change rarely comes from such an elitist approach; any such
effort would have to demonstrate exactly how it would propose to deal with the
astonishing level of distrust of others in the country.
In 2014, only 7% of the Romanian population could
say that “most people can be trusted” (compared with about 20% in Italy and 40% in
Germany).
The revelation of the collusion
between the infamous Securitate and the Anti-Corruption Agency (DNA) has understandably
fanned the flames of paranoia for which the Romanians can be forgiven - given
the scale of the surveillance of the population the Securitate enjoyed under
Ceausescu. Little wonder half of the population are Covid sceptics
Conclusion
In the 1980s
it was Solidarity in Poland; Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia; and reformers in
Hungary who were challenging the power structure – I remember taking the
opportunity of being in the country to visit the Party’s “White House” in
Budapest in 1987 to talk with a spokesman for the latter.
Bulgaria
and Romania, on the other hand, were monolithic and frozen societies – with the
only sign of discord being the odd Romanian poet – and on
the Danube where protestors against a chemical plant included a few establishment
figures such as Svetlin
Rusev.
But
the street has become much more active in the past decade – even if it is the
more educated and “entitled” who are prominent there. And it is
“the Crowd” that the power elite has always feared – particularly in the last
century eg the infamous “Revolt of the Masses” (1930). And
who can ever forget the moment when
the massed crowd turned against Ceausescu in December 1989 – within
minutes, he had been hoisted from his balcony by helicopter and, within days,
summarily tried and shot.
It’s noticeable that the figures whose words I’ve quoted – Dahrendorf, Canetti, Krastev, Mungiu-Pippidi and Sandor – all represent the intelligentsia. I was brought up to take their words seriously - but they are not activists!
The
sadly-missed David
Graeber was one of the very few such people prepared to get his hands
dirty… to work across the barriers that normally divide people and to try to
forge new coalitions…
The
Crowd needs people like Graeber who understand how to bridge such
barriers…………..particularly between the “downtrodden masses” and the “entitled”
Where is
Bulgaria’s Graeber? There are, actually, several eg Vanya Grigorova – the
economic adviser of the labour union “Podkrepa” (Support) and leading left-wing
public figure – who has been travelling the country to present her latest book
on labour rights and how to claim them. A year ago she gave this
interview to Jacobin,
which positioned her on the side of social change in Bulgaria and the region.
Both Covid19
and the greater concern about global warming - as embodied, for example
in the recent Extinction Rebellion – suggest that the “normality” being
sought by the entitled is a will o’ the wisp.
The Sofia protestors would
therefore be well advised to widen the scope of their agenda. After all, smaller countries generally seem
better able to “do” change viz Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, Singapore,
Estonia, Slovenia – particularly when they have women at their helm who
have a combination of trustworthiness and strategic vision!!
Especially for them I
updated my
list of essential reading for activists – adding my own “opportunistic” theory of change
which emphasises the element of individual responsibility as well as the
dynamic of the crowd viz
“Most of the time our
systems seem impervious to change – but always (and suddenly) an opportunity
arises. Those who care about the future of their society, prepare for these
“windows of opportunity – through proper analysis, mobilisation and integrity.
It involves–
·
speaking
out about the need for change
·
learning
the lessons of previous change efforts
·
creating and running networks of change
·
which mobilise social forces
·
understanding
crowd dynamics
·
reaching
out to forge coalitions
·
building
credibility
I grant you
that the time for preparation is over in Sofia; and appreciate that some of
this may come across as rather elitist but the process it describes is still a
crucial one – prepare, analyse, network, speak out, build coalitions, mobilise,
no hidden games…..It’s a tough combination……
No comments:
Post a Comment