This is the second part of the guest post on current events in Romania and Bulgaria, from Ronald G. Young, who writes the Peripheral Vision blog.
How, 30 years on, is post-communism doing?
In the 1990's 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 - if one that focuses more on “the crisis of modern liberalism”. It’s entitled "The Light that Failed – a Reckoning" and was published last year - although the Bulgarian translation will not be available until this October.
The book starts with 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 a chapter 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.
Their explanation, however, for the failure of the rule of law and democracy to take proper root in eastern Europe (the Baltic states excepted) places too much weight on the psychological effect of countries being forced to copy the “Western modernisation model” - an approach which 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”.
Indeed the academic field of colonial studies (or at least its younger Eastern members) has, to an extent, colonised what used to be known as transitology – at some considerable loss, it must be said, to clarity of communication.
Although it’s really the Anti-Corruption (or governance integrity) literature which has replaced that of transitology and grown in the last 25 years into a "name and shame" industry - complete with league tables and Manuals.
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. Her latest book Europe's Burden - promoting good governance across borders" (2020) is a must-read for those who want to know why a quarter of a century of trying to build systems of government that people can trust has had so little effect in ex-communist countries.
Her book starts with a sketch of Switzerland’s political development which reminds us that Napoleon was the catalyst for a 50-year period during which the Swiss embedded the basic structures we associate with that country.
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.
One of Romania's most famous political analysts had an extensive interview recently which I tried 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.
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 visiting 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 e.g. the infamous “Revolt of the Masses” (1930). Who can ever forget the moment when the massed crowd turned against Ceausescu in December 1989 – within minutes, he had been hoisted 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 e.g. 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! It would be interesting to know what “playbook” the Sofia activists have been working from….hopefully not the manipulative Gene Sharp’s!
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