The Development of Post-Communist Countries Since 1990

Dr Barbara Hug and Dr Niels Peter Ammitzboell

The ‘Hungarian Pedagogical Workshop’ and the ‘Pedagogical Service Centre of the IX District’ organised their IV international conference, which was chaired by Dr. Kàroly Baranyi, from 15-17 February. In the following we publish one of the numerous papers delivered at the conference, whose subject was the development in the post-communist countries and the question what is needed in order for the people in these countries to establish democratic states.

In the following, we will first take a look at some features of the developments in the former Warsaw Pact countries, the CIS countries as well as the countries that became independent around 1990. We will then address these developments from a social psychological point of view and ask what impact the huge economic and social upheavals have had on people, on the population as a whole, in these countries.

The privatisation process, as is known, meant a redistribution of wealth. In many cases this was accompanied by blackmail and murder. The average standard of living has fallen. Unemployment has come to these countries as a new phenomenon, and it is extraordinarily high in all of them. The costs of living have increased, too. Many firms and bigger companies are now owned by transnational corporations. Crucial branches of the economy are no longer domestically owned. This holds true, for instance, for branches relevant to national security, such as telecommunications, electricity, railways, shipping companies, ports, natural resources, the media, food supply etc.. Needless to say, one should not expect foreign companies to be particularly concerned about the well-being of the population in the country that they invest in. Whether you look at Latvia, the Ukraine, or Kyrgyzstan, it is the same picture throughout.

In many cases, these countries have also been forced to provide bases for foreign military forces. They need to restructure their own armed forces and have considerably increased their defence budgets. This, of course, means there is less public spending on health and education. In cases where borders or tariffs on trade and industry have been newly introduced, small-scale cross-border trade has become much more difficult and expensive or has been completely disrupted. This form of trade, however, used to be a characteristic feature throughout the whole of the former Eastern bloc. Larger and smaller markets enabled large sections of the population to sustain themselves. Polish kitchen furniture was sold to Uzbekistan, cheap track suit bottoms from China were sold in Astrachan, and so forth. In the small Polish town of Przemysl near the Ukrainian border, for instance, there was a thriving little market–small, lockable, corrugated iron huts that were errected in the local sports ground–which supplied people with everything they needed. The Polish border with Ukraine, however, will become a border of the Schengen area. It can now only be crossed by obtaining a visa from the Ukraine. The local market has disappeared–chickens, nails, combs, tracksuits, soap, nuts and cheese, many people made some money from the local trade. Politicians have not given enough or any thought at all to how this loss can be made up for. The public health and social security institutions in these countries have also collapsed. There is no social security; education, too, is expensive.

These negative trends persist. Neither can they be made less grave by arguing that ‘now there is freedom and democracy’, nor can they be considered negligible or simply transitory. The dramatic deprivation process in these countries is a reality that cannot be ignored. Moreover, this upheaval was anticipated and planned, and it is now being put into practice according to those plans.

If we look at the developments outlined above from a social psychological perspective, this raises a burning question: what conditions can be said to be conducive to an individual acting as a responsible citizen within a democratic society. To be sure, economic conditions play an important part; but one also needs to consider how citizens interact in all areas of public life as well as in the process of the formation of the political will. All this has an impact on the psychological well-being of each individual.

It is often said that the countries of the former Eastern bloc are societies undergoing a so-called process of transformation or transition.

However, one question is paramount in this context and needs to be addressed in full, namely the question of what the direction of this ‘transformation’ actually is, what decisions paved the way for this kind of change, where the ‘journey’ will take these societies – and how desirable it actually is when looked at from the point of view of what kind of economic and political order is to evolve in these countries. What was the Leitmotiv in the collapse of the Soviet Union, of the policies pursued by Gorbachev and of the eventual dissolution of the whole Eastern bloc?

‘Transition’ has become the buzz word to denote a development of social and economic structures that former Eastern bloc countries would have to undergo in order to establish democracies, legal orders and market economies approximating those in Western democracies. These predictions have proved utterly wrong and misleading; they were falsehoods presented as facts. In actual fact the transformation processes have not been aimed at establishing societies as they existed in the West until 1989. Instead, models have been forced upon former communist countries that have nothing in common with an understanding of democracy, the rule of law, a sound economic model, equity and decent living conditions for all, as used to be associated with Western democracies. In Western countries these (new) models are being introduced as well, albeit more gradually. The Swiss, for instance, do not want to liberalise their public services, such as electricity.

As a result, the process of transformation has developed into something different to what it was taken to be. Privatisation was not aimed at building an economic system based upon a bottom-up approach fostering small and medium-sized enterprises as well as larger companies. The bonum commune has not been the yardstick of reforms. The EU model of centralised economic governance is inefficient and leads to a waste of financial resources. The model that has been forced upon countries in Eastern Europe is directed against the nation state and an incorporated welfare system. This has led to the impoverishment of large sections of the population and also uncompromisingly affects the prospects of the majority of the population.

Given this, it is worth remembering that there are, or have been, models of a social welfare state in Europe that work. Had the so-called transformation been based on these premises, it would have led to a quite different situation.

What are then, from a social psychological perspective, the basic requirements that a social welfare model needs to meet in order to foster a prosperous community in a sustainable manner: in the interest of coming generations, of peace and the environment. We would like to present just a few points that we consider of key importance:

• The protection of the family: it is in the family that the social skills necessary for playing a constructive role in the larger community are acquired. Co-operation and mutual help are essential if the larger community and society as a whole are to function well.
  
• Education: a system of edu-cation must guarantee proper basic education for everyone, thorough job training as well as a stimulating, intellectually invigorating environment that offers children access to all aspects of knowledge and culture. It must also enable young people to fully develop their individual potential and their personalities, and to learn to co-operate with other children regardless of their background.
  
• An economic model that is oriented towards the welfare of all members of society. A country’s economy needs a strong middle class, and a system that is conducive to small and medium-sized busi-nesses as well as larger corporations. There is also justification for independent co-operatives, because of the important role they can play in an economy.
  
• Social security: there need to be public institutions and services catering for tasks in the public sector;
  
• Thriving municipalities: those tasks that can be administered at a lower level should not be allocated to larger political entities.
  
• Cultural and social life finds expression in associations and other independent and diverse forms of self-organisation.
  
• Clear concepts as to how peace can be safeguarded: the rejection of war as a viable means of pursuing political interests. The power of a country to decide independently on matters of war and peace, control over national security, and subscription to the principle of self-defence which is discussed, assessed and supported by citizens.
  
• Citizens need to be able to fully exercise their democratic rights in the political process. The Swiss model of democracy, for instance, means that citizens have the ultimate control over the legislation process even at the federal level and thus play a much more active role than if they just periodically cast votes.
  

In short, it is citizens that determine the conditions under which they want to live together, it is not just government for the people, but government by the people.

This conference is entitled ‘Now is the Time to Make up One’s Mind’.

Today, almost 13 years after the wall came down, we can assess the process of transformation and its consequences as we have experienced them. We are now in a position to evaluate the results and to decide if we want to carry on going down this route, if it is to the benefit of all or not.

Each country, be it Latvia, Ukraine, Kygyzstan, Moldavia, Poland, Georgia, Hungary, needs to decide for itself: what model of social welfare, what economic model do we want? What family policies, education policies do we want? How do we address the issue of national security?

From a social psychological perspective, these issues are of a significance that cannot be overemphasised. If the majority of the people in your countries go along with the assessment that the direction the transformation process has taken so far is wrong, they will have to devise and discuss ways in which developments can be amended and given a different direction.

Thank you for your attention.