Marc Howard argues in his article “The Weakness of Postcommunist Civil Society” that participation in civil society is very low in former Communist countries compared to older democracies and post-authoritarian regimes. He asserts that this is true for three reasons: the enduring legacy of mistrust of communist organizations because citizens were often forced to join state controlled groups, the persistence of close friendship networks in place of larger civil society organizations, and post-communist disappointment because of which citizens do not wish to participate more actively in civil society.
Even though civil society institutions have declined in the postcommunist era, Michael McFaul demonstrates in his article “Transitions from Postcommunism” that during the transition towards democracy there were many groups formed in order to unseat the incumbent regimes. Why would civil society be much stronger in the period of time before the transition than once democracy has already been established? Howard’s explanations do not fit to explain this phenomenon, because groups formed during this period even though there existed resentment and mistrust of communist organizations, and close friendship networks. The reason civil society was stronger before and during the transition towards democracy is that the citizens came together under the banner of a single cause in order to fight for that in which they believed.
McFaul outlines the factors that allowed groups to form, including a semi-autocratic regime, an unpopular current leader, and a united opposition. Because of the common objection to the incumbent leader, groups came together with that as a common interest. While Howard’s criteria serve to explain the current lack of participation in many social groups, etc., another reason that civil society, and in particular the participation in activist groups has declined, is because the citizens have already achieved some semblance of democracy. Although the degree to which these new governments can be considered truly democratic varies greatly, for the most part the political groups achieved their end, and the citizens now have much less of a reason to organize. This must be considered another important factor contributing to the decline of civil society in postcommunist societies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that it is very easy to forget that the monumental peaceful transition from communism towards democracy commenced only roughly twenty years ago. I think that while the situation should be one that is watched, it must be done so in balance and by focusing on the relative movement towards democracy rather than comparing it to the evolution of the "old democracies" to the current so-called beacons of democracy--a global police force aimed to fight corruption and violations of human rights across the world while continuously defending and spreading democracy. In agreement with your post, I think that it is often unfair to build such strong arguments derived from examining attitude and involvement in civil society after such a relatively short period of time. For nearly seventy years, many nations lived under the shadow of communism--societies in which people would, as Bunce states, come to "utter formulas they did not believe and that they did not expect anyone else to believe". While many would argue like Howard that involvement in civil society has been greatly hindered by "postcommunist dissapointment", I would argue that involvement has been hindered simply due to the rightfully skeptical attitude of the people. After seventy years, accounting for multiple generations, of living under an ideologically ruled society in which one saw the state as an oppressor and untrusted, it is unrealistic to think that simply because a change of regime types has occurred, skepticism would cease to exist altogether. We often expect immediate change, but I think we need to approach the state of civil society in postcommunist Europe with much more patience. While it is important to advocate properly for increased involvement, it should not be something forced like the policy of the Soviet Union, nor should it be something that we should expect right away. In a relatively short period of time, many nations have been placed on the course towards democracy, and although involvement in civil society is low, I think it would be a grave mistake to overreact to the lack of participation. Rather, it would be the hope that the skepticism and reluctance to participant will disappear through the coming generations. The importance is the existence and protection of democratic institutions and life.
Post a Comment