The Reasons Why Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia Fell Apart - Essay Example

Essay In the early 1990s, both of the federal s of Eastern Europe (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) fell apart. Why this did happen and why was the process so radically different in the two countries concerned? The start of 1990s decade saw radical developments in Europe and largely in Eastern Europe. It came about in the form of the disintegration of the super power, the Soviet Union after the end of the Cold War. The end of the Cold war had a marked impact on other smaller states in Eastern Europe as well. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were two of the many cases that saw disintegration. The root causes behind it stretch back to reasons owing to weakening of the federation, excessive nationalistic outcry, and change of social and political order with the virtual collapse and end of the socialist regime that was previously dominant in whole of Europe. Yugoslavia tasted the fate of disintegration on account of excessive nationalistic outcry among its federating units, Czechoslovakia on the other hand came about a tough deal on account of mismatched alliance. Furthermore, the case of excessive legislative rulings in the unified working between the Slovaks and Czechs led to souring of relationships and as a result constant effort towards regaining their lost identities and virtual disintegration towards the last decade of twentieth century. During Tito’s reign the nationalist sentiment within the Yugoslavia was found to be evident, but they remained largely contained. The existence of the two largest states that were in Yugoslavia – Serbia and Croatia – was found to have never been happy with the role of each in federation. Most of the Croats believed that it was the Serbia’s excessive influence that was due to continuation of Serb monarchic line that had resulted to the first attempt at the Yugoslav union fail spectacularly in inter-war years, when there were many Serbs cited relocation of the industry to other regions of the Yugoslavia. Sarajevo along with other regions of the Federation of Yugoslavia enjoyed peace between 1960s. This was due to economic development and growth that was experienced in the region following economic development and liberalization. The further reforms development facilitated open up of the market and development through the open market. The region was one of the safest in terms of investment, political stability and tourist attraction, turned into a place dubbed as “Welcome to Hell” by as early as 1992.1Political imbalance along with ethnic inequality and exploitation were two more reasons that contributed to the overall turmoil and hand and virtual disintegration of the two states. In case of Yugoslavia, there were nationalist disputes between representatives of the different units within the federation and clearly divided fault line existence between the political parties and military backed political leaders led to further deterioration of the situation. The traces of such intrigues can be tracked back to as early as 1986 when Extra Ordinary Congress of League of Communists was stressed for under which the general aim was to reduce the independence orientations of the previously loosely held federating units within single Yugoslav state. The objectives under the union and League formation were to create an asymmetric federation. This was perhaps one of the critical point in the entire breakup of the federation.2 Tito was from a mixed ethnic background with a Croatian father and also a Slovenian mother. It was found that after World War II, Tito declared his interest in creating a new ‘Yugoslav’ identity aimed at unifying the constituent republics. In addition, the concept of ‘Yugoslavism’ was promoted through the entire period of communist era. It is found that the percentage of population that was identified as the Yugoslav was persistently low. The census data that was compiled in 1961, 1971, 1981, and 1991 had recorded people’s allegiance where their ethnic or federal nationality was key. Although, one caveat is that census did not give people an opportunity to declare themselves as belonging to an ethnic allegiance and Yugoslav – so it was impossible to indicate their identity. Under this program, the aim was to bring about economic equality that had been lost previously owing to the overall economic crunch faced in the European economy. The loosely held federal states of Yugoslavia were already in tussle for resources and recognition, the Markovic program was aimed at bringing about some consolation, however it could not live up to the expectations resolving their issues. The internal tussle and battle for supremacy led to further strangulation of situation. This came about in the form of revolt and rebel from Socialist Alliance of Working People (SAWP).3SAWP was the largest and the most influential mass organization in the SFR Yugoslavia between August 1945 and 1990. The drawing of gulf came about in the elections in the same year. The elections held in 1990 between January and February facing challenges due to its broadness for the Slovenia and Croatia, the other members of the federation abstained from being part of the political transition process. The Croatian League of Communists was the first to suffer the blow back in this regard. Croatia and Slovenia were the two leading units that took a step which would weaken the federation in real sense and longer term. Slogans such as De-communization were chanted and the parties took a new course of action with regard to future internal politics. The rise of Slobodan Milosevic made inroads to power corridors through initial affluence with the Ivan Stambolid was the one who would change the fate of Yugoslavia and lead to genocide in Kosovo.4 The Czechs and Slovakians had relatively grown tired of the ruling communist system. This was evident through the fact that the uprising that was seen against the previous government was led by a set of individuals and units who utterly denounced the practices and policies of pro Communist ideology.5 The same could not be said about Yugoslavia. Yugoslavian affairs and tragedy of disintegration was more about the ethnic conflict, nationalistic outcry and internal unrest with regard to internal wars and genocide as the extreme point which forced the global community to participate and stop the massacre from further unfolding. Padraic Kenney attributes the causes of collapse of Yugoslavia to multi-faceted aspects. These include genocide in one of the federating units, internal political strife in other sets of federating units and the Croatia and Slovakia affair and the break up in form of the long held mismatched relationship.6 Furthermore, Padraic Kenney traces back the unrest to as early as 1981 and 1986 where civil society raised their concerns with regard to the ruling machinery and procedures.7The death of Tito in 1980 was marked with turbulent moments for a decade that resulted to the death of Yugoslavia that caused structural problems in the federation that was as a result of economic decline, nationalism rise, and changing international climate that was experienced at the end of the cold war. This resulted to the federation becoming untenable that resulted to the dissolution of Yugoslavia, which led to bloodshed and violence that has continued till today. The Croatian War proved to be a much costly affair and not just in terms of expenditure or internal costs rather the net damages it brought about in the form of divide build up and segmenting the already existing gulf between the various factions and segments in an already frail federation. Karen Henderson is of the view that the declaration of independence by the each unit in the form of breakup of Czech and Slovakia came about on 31st December 1992, yet it was in offing for a longer time period.8Her views coincide with those of Padraic Kenney’s with regard to the ethnic, politic, historical, constitutional and historical aspects and factors that made the two a virtual mismatch grouped into one.9There was plenty of evidence that most Czechoslovaks wanted to maintain the union. However, Karen Henderson, in his studies does hint at the people’s alleged interest towards staying unified, yet it cannot be verified through authentic sources, and also even if that holds true, it may be so on the account of fact that the people may had found solitude in the unified outlook, yet the local political landscape did not allow this to foster peacefully between the two and as a result and consequence, the two had to go different way in form of disintegration.10 The divide between the two was so broad and so visible that each had a nearly own set of ruling and own set of living standards. For example, the newspaper publication was also different that was followed by each community. This led to complete isolation of the two from one another and furthermore, it led to different mindsets, ideals and ideology to prevail against the other with little coherence between the two.11 The fall of Berlin wall along with the overall sensitivity towards the pro democratic forces and an overall exhaustion from the general socialist mindset created a general impedance towards the cause of unrest and desire for creating an independence based entity. The creation of movements such as the Velvet Revolution of 1989 was a part of the entire mindset that was reflective of the ideas at that time.12The elections held at this time were perhaps most important as they led to the declaration and clear demarcation of elements and boundaries between the two. The subsequent result came about in the form of independent candidates contesting on different zones and eventually leading to the unique standing despite being under single federating unit.13 ViachaslauYarashevich has looked into the economic aspect and the weak outlook of Yugoslav economy that may have contributed towards the collapse and disintegration of the Federation.14Internal wars, poor policies with regard to the government expenditure, inflation rates souring up, general economic wellbeing and health of Europe at large were few of the aspects that fulfilled this facet in this regard of disintegration of Yugoslavia.15 Rising external debt was a constant burden and dark cloud surmounting the government policies.16 While the values of deficit stood at meager 250 million in the 1960s, by the late 1980s decade, the digit of external debt had reached multibillion dollar figure.17 The extensive support taken from the rest of the Europe came about in the form of interest. With regard to the Czech disintegration, the economic aspect in terms of external debt and continuous bludgeoning was not a factor as such and did not contribute on notable grounds as such. Civic Democratic Alliance was a party that stood firm against the Communist agendas in the local elections.18Yugoslavia with aims of empowering its masses and bringing about social development undertook massive loans and funds from World Bank. None of them were interest free and as a result it amounted to continuous pressure exertion on the domestic affairs of economy. Initiating operations such as Operation Storm was another hallmark of the overall mood that prevailed in the day with maximum gains attempted and further aims at crushing the Croats cry for liberation and independence where they suffered severely.19 The outcome from the elections that year in the form of success of League of Communists party in Montenegro was another build up to further distances creation between the various stakeholders involved in the internal political dynamics. On account of change and disintegration of Czechoslovakia the Velvet revolution played an integral role. Yugoslavia on the other hand did not come across anything such as Velvet Revolution. This serves as one of the most important differences between the two. The overall scenario served as a case of stuck between the rock and hard place where the absence of democracy had done considerable damage and invitation of democracy in the form of Velvet revolution against the pro Communist forces resulted in the internal defragmentation and eventual collapse of the entire unit.20 Jim Seroka in his review about what led to the disintegration of the Yugoslav state reveals that it was an account of multiple reasons and multiple forces. Like other authors and experts who studied the subject in detail, Jim Seroka reveals that it was an element of ethnic divide, absence of democracy, outright dictatorial ruling methods, sense of depravity at one hand, excessive authority on the other were few of the deterministic terms and scenarios that led to the virtual collapse of Yugoslavia.21 The incumbent through his might and fist maintained grip over the loosely held states and federating units, but once his patronage parted from the federation, the federating units found it of little resistance to strive for the long awaited independence. Czechoslovakia that began in 1980s that was as a result of integration of previously independent states in the form of Slovaks and Czech Socialist Republic. The very foundation of this union was taken up with mixed response by the citizens of the two countries. While Slovaks found it an opportunity to integrate themselves with the relatively developed and progressive unit, the Czechs on the other hand only believed that they may be of assistance and mentoring role towards the Slovaks who had recently come under their influence and partnership in international alliance. Czechs as a whole enjoyed considerable smooth and stable living standards in the days leading to the Second World War.22 The absence of democracy and the fact that the Soviet Union had its influence on the region in general and Czechoslovakia in particular made the overall existence and working further difficult.23Through the history of the disintegration of various states, it has been often noticed that the absence of democracy and excessively autocratic system of ruling leads to the increased level of disparity which at times leads to cases so severe that the existence of federation comes to a direct threat.The minority Veto had to be invoked seriously under socialism because there was no democratic politics. Once democracy becomes genuine after 1989, the problems of the minority veto become clear. A contrasting feature between the independence struggle that was undertaken by Croatia and Slovaks was seen on account of the historical precedence. While one of them fought on the basis of the nationalistic outcry (Croatia), the others aimed to regain the lost glory and level the scores with regard to their past bitterness and rivalry that was in the ranks. Their hostility towards one another could be stretched back to the days of glory of the League of Communists and the individuals who were kept away from the mainstream political participation in those days. One significant leader who fought his way back into power and influence was Tudjman who being ousted and deposed from the centre stage did not give up and continued his efforts towards regaining the lost glory. Another factor that strengthened separatist attitude in the republics was particularly during the future decade of the communist rule that was characterized with economic underperformance. The Yugoslav federation had indulged into a debts that summed to nearly $20 billion during the time when Tito died. Furthermore, the economic decline in 1980s indicated a growing disparity in the federation that magnified nationalist sentiment. It was also noted that the fundamental equality in the federation was questionable taking into account the state of the economy in Croatia and Slovenia. The two region were consistently wealthier than other regions in the federation after the death of Tito (Statistical Pocketbooks of Yugoslavia, 1966 – 1979). For example, Slovenia was for a long time listed as the wealthiest region in the Yugoslav republic. Howver, it was found that Slovenes continued to experience per capita investment from the Belgrade that far exceeded what was received by other republics that facilitated the fostering rivalry and discontent in the region. The two countries that disintegrated were highly significant with regard to the global politics. It left behind the precedence of events in the larger perspective that changed the whole dynamics of the two relatively smaller countries in contrast. No single element could be highlighted to have contributed to the disintegration.24 Rather, a mix of multiple factors ranging from economic crunch to poor governance to lack of democracy to genocides to ethnic divide to the global system of democracy against communism were few of the reasons. In the second case, the events of mismatched integration and a constant struggle for regaining the lost name and lost identity caused the overall catharsis that eventually grew up in the form disintegration.This affected development and political identity of the region by increasing the cases for war and economic underperformance. The disintegration of the given countries along with disintegrated outlook make up for a case of how larger populated countries may not be suitable. Also the two countries and their cases serve as a test parameter with regard to how different ethnic backgrounds may be supported in a complex society. Further, the lack of long sightedness is also an element that is attributed to have brought down the virtual downfall and collapse of these two countries.25In present day, the two societies fare relatively well as small units that are able to handle their issues and also handle their needs with little complex outlook as compared to the past. Economic lessons need to be learnt from the past and integration with the more dynamic and vibrant economies of Europe are s a must for these countries.26 Bibliography Secondary Sources Andreas, P. Blue Helmets and Black Markets: The Business of Survival in the Siege of Sarajevo. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008, pp. 160-95. Bennett, C. Yugoslavias Bloody Collapse: Causes, Course and Consequences. London: Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1995, pp. 156- 204. Coulson, M. ‘Looking behind the Violent Break-Up of Yugoslavia’, Feminist Review, 45 (1993), pp. 86- 101. Henderson, K.‘Czechoslovakia: The failure of consensus politics and the break‐up of the federation’, Regional & Federal Studies, 5, 2 (1995), pp. 111-33. Kenney, P., The Burdens of Freedom: Eastern Europe since 1989. London: Zed Books, 2006, pp. 56-80. Luric, R. Europe from the Balkans to the Urals: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 54- 73. MacDonald, D. Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim-centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002, pp. 183-219. Musil, J. The End of Czechoslovakia. Budapest:Central European University Press, 1995, pp. 40- 76. Myant, M. ‘The Breakup of Czechslovakia: An Indepth Economic Analysis’, Europe-Asia Studies, 49, 4 (1997), pp. 712-15. Ramet, S. Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to the War for Kosovo, 3rded. Boulder, Colo:Westview Press, 1999, pp. 25- 45. Rubešková, M., Schulzová, H. & Šimečka, ‘Two decades on from the break-up of Czechoslovakia: Departures, diversions and destinations’,Centre for European Policy Studies, (2013) pp. 1- 9. Seroka, J. ‘Yugoslavia and its Successor States’, in S. White, Develpments in East European Politics. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993, pp. 98- 121. Shepherd, R. Czechoslovakia: The Velvet Revolution and Beyond. New York:Palgrave Macmillan, 2000, pp. 55- 110. Stanger, A. & Kraus, M. Irreconcilable Differences?: explaining Czechoslovakia’s Dissolution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, pp. 49- 66. Woodward, S. Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution, 1995, pp. 114-45. Yarashevich, V. & Karneyeva, Y. ‘Economic reasons for the break-up of Yugoslavia’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 46 (2013), pp. 263-73. References P. Andreas, Blue Helmets and Black Markets: The Business of Survival in the Siege of Sarajevo (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008), p. 160-95 C. Bennett, Yugoslavias Bloody Collapse: Causes, Course and Consequences(London: Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1995), p. 156- 204 M. Coulson, ‘Looking behind the Violent Break-Up of Yugoslavia’, Feminist Review, 45 (1993), p. 86- 101 K. Henderson, ‘Czechoslovakia: The failure of consensus politics and the break‐up of the federation’, Regional & Federal Studies, 5, 2 (1995), pp. 111-33. P. Kenney,The Burdens of Freedom: Eastern Europe since 1989(London: Zed Books, 2006), p. 56-80. S. Woodward, Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War(Washington D.C: Brookings Institution, 1995), p. 114-45. R. Luric, Europe from the Balkans to the Urals: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 54- 73. D. MacDonald, Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim-centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), p. 183-219. J. Musil, The End of Czechoslovakia (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1995), p. 40- 76. M. Myant, ‘The Breakup of Czechslovakia: An Indepth Economic Analysis’, Europe-Asia Studies, 49, 4 (1997), p. 712-15. S. Ramet,Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to the War for Kosovo, 3rded(Boulder, Colo: Westview Press, 1999), p. 25- 45. M. Rubešková,H. Schulzová,&M. Šimečka, ‘Two decades on from the break-up of Czechoslovakia: Departures, diversions and destinations’,Centre for European Policy Studies, (2013)p. 1- 9. J. Seroka, ‘Yugoslavia and its Successor States’, in S. White, Develpments in East European Politics(Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993), p. 98- 121. R. Shepherd, Czechoslovakia: The Velvet Revolution and Beyond (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000), p. 55- 110. A. Stanger, &M. Kraus, Irreconcilable Differences?: explaining Czechoslovakia’s Dissolution (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000),p. 49- 66. V. Yarashevich, &Y. Karneyeva, ‘Economic reasons for the break-up of Yugoslavia’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 46 (2013), p. 263-73. Read More