In "The Weakness of Post-Communist Civil Society,” Howard contends that the civil society in Post-Communist countries is distinctively weaker due to “the legacy of mistrust of communist organizations” and “post-communist disappointment” among other reasons. While Howard abstains from declaring that the low level of participation in civil society means that post-communist democracy development is doomed, I think the weakness of Post-Communist civil society has more important implications if viewed within the context of EU development.
The EU is currently grappling with developing a distinct political identity and is significantly hindered by the low turnout in EU elections and the democracy deficit. However, if this deficit is demolished with a reform of the EU power distribution, it threatens to even more divide the EU between the “Kern Europa”—the core of the EU, and historical leaders of Western Europe: France, Germany, and England—and the other smaller EU members, many of which were formally a part of the USSR. Following Howard’s data on Post-Communist civil society, even if all EU citizens are given a greater role in determining those in power in the EU, those citizens in Post-Communist countries are significantly more likely to not participate in elections because of their legacy of mistrust of organizations and post-communist disappointment in the economic and political development of the new system.
As a result, the fragmentation of the EU political identity will increase as Post-Communist countries struggle to develop civic participation and a typical European democracy. Despite how economically integrated and united the EU is, the differences in the style and dynamics of the democracies of various member states creates an enormous obstacle in establishing a united political policy. Moreover, due to the “legacy of mistrust” and “post-communist disappointment” most Post-Communist countries will be inherently wary of any strong movements for a united EU political identity as they will be reminiscent of the restrictive policies of communist ideology.
1 comment:
I think that this is a very interesting application of Howard's ideas and highlights yet another circumstance in which specialists are left in a state of speculation. In this situation, political scientists and political leaders try to predict the evolutionary process of the EU, while taking into account the decline of participation in civil society. While the picture that Howard and you paint of the former communist states--and in this case the EU as a whole--is not one of promise and probable success, I think that one has to consider the idea of the EU using its vast supply of soft power to influence constituents within its borders. In recent years, one has seen the rise of the European Union as not only an economic global leader but as a political leader. It was not the UN nor NATO or the global policing US that was called to settle the dispute in Abkhazia, but rather the EU that took a leading role. In the past year, President Medvedev has repeatedly called for a stronger relationship with the EU--a relationship designed to bolster trade and more intriguing, a possible security relationship. While it is evident that the EU has accumulated a vast supply of soft power and effectively uses this power to influence people in the Middle East and across the World, it is yet to be seen if the EU can utilize their soft power to compel their citizens to follow policies within the border of the EU. After briefly explaining that generational change could bring about increased participation in civil society, Howard asserts that a second mechanism to increase participation in civili society could be achieved through an approach which "involves encouraging postcommunist citizens to acquire familiarity, comfort, and a new positive association with voluntary organizations". While cautioning that previous attempts to do so were perceived as "anticommunist" and portrayed the citizens of former communist nations as "wrong, unethical, and unsuitable for a democratic and capitalist society". After reading your post, I am left wondering whether the EU could effectively create the so-called 'European Identity' and use the very image behind the identity as a vehicle through which one creates a solid connection of all citizens to civil society. Although this is only speculative in nature--a guessing game of sorts--it would be the hope that the EU could use its soft power to influence the people within the EU, creating an enduring connection to civil society across social and economic levels, and reinvigorate not only citizens of former communist states but of Europe as a whole.
Post a Comment