From the Communist Regime to Democracy - Term Paper Example

 «From the Communist Regime to Democracy» Just as the two main national parties in any democratic country there are two main regimes that define the laws to rule a nation-they are democracy and communism. Communism seems to be the opposition right now, with most of the nations turning to democracy. Here we discuss about the main eastern regions of Europe that fought for winning their democracy and wished for the transformation to bring about a better future, which is expected of democracy. As the topic suggests we will study the transformation of the mentioned countries from communism to democracy. Our discussion will range from the transformation process to the economic changes brought about. Through a discussion of the GDP per capita and HDI (Human Development Index) we will take a thorough look at the transformation process and the effect it had on the nations. We will take up The Spirit of Democracy by Larry Diamond and Pax Democratica, a Strategy for The 21st Century by James Robert Huntley, to understand what democracy means and through our other sources, we will study the nations under question. We will take up three main issues individually to study the transformation process. While discussion of each of each issue individually, we will learn how they are intertwined and how they affected the nations in turn. We will then conclude about what the topic and the research has helped in our understanding of the four countries; and conclude with a note on our understanding of democracy learnt through this discussion. It was in 1989 that communism collapsed in the Eastern Europe. Many people were instrumental in that collapse. The most important point to note is that it was not a fight for power where certain people are involved in the fight while the citizens are just a group watching the show; instead, it was a transition from one stage to another. People wanted a change of regime and fought for it. The fall of communism brought about a change in Eastern Europe that affected the economic growth of the nations while at the same time there was a sea change in the way people perceived the changes and the way the leaders ruled the nations. We shall first take up the issue of the transformation in general, i.e. the changes in the political system. Let me first clear the common notion that politics is only related to the study of the political leaders of the nation and the political parties; however, we need to understand that when we talk about political system then every individual forms a part of that system. “One could say that communism in Eastern Europe began to collapse when it was imposed on the region by Soviet tanks and troops starting in 1944 (just as Soviet communism began to collapse when it was imposed on the Russian people by the Bolsheviks in 1917-20).” 1 This defines that communism always implies restrictions and people never accept those restrictions, hence the need and the fight for a change. The change came to the Eastern Europe with the establishment of democracy. Hungary, Poland were the frontrunners when it came to overthrowing the communal regime. Romania and Bulgaria had just short outbursts but they were benefited by the common protests going in the entire Eastern Europe. 1 Post the fall of Kádár’s communist regime in Hungary, in parliamentary elections of May 1994, the Hungarian Socialist Party regained a majority in the elections, and named its leader, Gyula Horn as prime minister. In Poland in the 1989 elections communism faced straight defeat when Solidarity became the major winner, winning 100 out of 99 seats. Bulgaria embarked on the transition with the 1991 elections when Zhelyu Zhelev won the elections. Even though in Romania the 1990 elections were an official retreat from communism in June when anti-government protests were brutally suppressed, it brought a gory face of the elected party (which still consisted mainly of communists). Ion Iliescu won the re-election in October 1992 and a new government was formed by Democratic National Salvation Front (DNSF). With the start of the new regimes in the regions, the process to acknowledge the principles and demands of democracy completely remained a long process in all the four countries. It would be appropriate to say that Romania had the worst experience of all with the initial step turning out to be a failure itself. Hungary was rather progressive when compared to the other three countries. As said before political system is not just the change of parties and leaders with each election but also includes the people who choose the government in the first place. The path ahead for the parties was not easy in all the four countries with people seeking a quick way out of the difficult economic situation in the regions. There were problems in all the four countries but what made the democracy a success in Hungary, while Romania kept slogging behind was the attitude of the people. In Hungary, the government had a good support of people and even though it introduced stringent budget cuts in 1994 to reduce its foreign debt of US$28 billion, people were not out in streets protesting the government’s move even though people were starving. This constant support also led to better proposals from government like privatization of companies and other measures. However, there were some problems like a scandal involving illegal payments, which resulted in the resignation of the minister for privatization, trade, and industry, Tamas Suchman, and the entire board of the Hungarian State Privatization and Holding Company (APV), in October 1996. In spite of that, there was continuous trust among people about government’s attempt to bring the country out of the gross situation it was left in by the communist regime. This itself indicates that our first issue which concern the political transformation wasn’t the smoothest ride but then that wasn’t meant to be either. One would have never acknowledged that with democratic regime, there would be a sudden transformation and every problem would be solved. The countries took their time in understanding the democracy and in taking it up whole-heartedly. One can only say that the best part with the new system was that people had a part in the system to perform. No longer can they choose to be the subjects of the sovereign, they became an integral part of the sovereignty instead. It was no longer about the power possession but it was about the country and its people and their benefits. No leader could risk to not caring about the people since they had the power. Therefore, regardless of the growth patterns and the GDP figures one can safely say that democracy and the transformation in these regions brought out a better prospect for people to live and to be treated as humans. This itself shall be a step forward to the development of the political system since as said before people are a part of the political system. The next issue that we will take up is regarding the market economy of the four countries. This issue is important because one of the main reasons for the fall of the communist regime was there oppressive rules towards economy of the regions, which resulted in the stagnation of the money of these nations and ultimately a bad economic condition. We need to analyze in what way the transformation lifted the economy or helped the economy in sustaining itself. To understand the economic conditions in these regions we need to look at how the communist regime dealt with the economy first. A communist regime mainly indulges in using the resources for the ultimate aim of saving the regime and not the country. Therefore, most of the sources, and money, went to the military upkeep. Even though there were good trade relations with the USSR for the industries and increasing better trade movements with non-communist and Western nations but they had to remain loyal to the USSR, which ultimately resulted in the slow growth rates. The economies of the regions, especially Hungary and Poland, relied heavily on industries, something that was brought out because of communist regime. Manufacturing was less important in Bulgaria and Hungary (about 40 per cent of (GDP) than in Poland and Romania (45 per cent). In the latter two, mining, shipyards or other heavy industries were powerful. Services accounted for over 55 per cent of GDP in Hungary, a bit less than 50 per cent in Poland and Bulgaria, and only about 35 per cent in Romania. The two Balkan countries clearly relied on agricultural output more than the other two economies with the share in GDP of about 20 per cent in Romania, and 12-15 per cent in Bulgaria while agriculture account for about 6-8 per cent in Poland and Hungary. 2 This excessive dependence on industries worked as a negative force to the development of the regions. The other thing that led to slowing of economic growth in these regions during 1980s was the excessive external debt. “In Poland, the annual rate of growth was negative in the first half of the decade (-2.8 per cent on average), although it turned positive in the second half (3.8 per cent on average). In 1989, the budget deficit of the Polish government exceeded 7 per cent of GDP. Hungarian development was meager throughout the 1980s (1 to 2 per cent a year).” 3 Not just were the countries going through a tough economic time with inflation on the rise and economic condition slowing down but also the various measures by the communist regime, like the nationalization of industries, led to decreased productivity as communism favored followers rather than talent. Thus, the new governments had a tough task with stringent budgets and heavy debts. The governments went with the common task to initiate liberalization, to stabilize the economy and to privatize the assets. Liberalization aimed at abolition of state monopolies and elimination of export controls and import quotas. Stabilization was mainly used as a means to curb inflation. However, due to initial liberalization inflation rose. Privatization was essential for a complete transformation from communism to market economy.4 In spite of similar ideologies, the development and the consequences varied in the four countries. The four countries show difference in their implementation of strategies. While Poland with its Balcerowicz plan brought a quick reform to the nation Romania remained a slow-reformer. Hungary too was quick in its reform process though there were problems in its fiscal policies, experiencing large budget deficits.5 Bulgaria also began its transition late in February 1991. However, in 1996, it experienced a crisis. "The Bulgarian crisis has its origins in the inefficient and nonviable state-owned sector of the economy but due to soft budget constraints and repeated bailouts, it spread to the public finances, the banking system, and the financial markets.” 6 Thus we see that the transformation process for the four countries were considerably different. It was not easy for any country to undertake the transformation in the first place so if we decide to give better marks to democracy than communism then one of the factors is that democracies started from ashes and have been doing well enough not to look back to communism as an option. Though the economies experienced considerable slowdown during the period from 1989-1994, they were developing a system that would lead to better prospects. Communist regime had its share of economic growth prior to 1980s (in Hungary especially), but the problem was neither the system, that is communism, was stable nor was the economic growth. The problem was that communism lacked the ideologies to bring about the kind of growth that a country needs. If we take China today as an exception then one shall remember it has been deviating from ideas of communism to capitalism to achieve that remarkable economic growth. Communism never was sustainable nor were its economic policies. There was no free flow of capital and as a result, the economic situation grew worse. The democratic transition successfully brought back the attention to agriculture as an important need for economic growth, which was both sustainable and self-sufficient. “In 1950, more than 50% of the labor force worked on the land; in 1993, slightly less than 7% engage in agricultural activity. Recently, Hungarian agriculture has been generally self-sufficient and an important source of export earnings.”73 Thus the economy, with a stress on stabilization and liberalization, were spearheaded towards the right direction. A significant difference in the growth pattern is observed in the four regions because of a difference in the attitude of the political system of the regions. It should be noted that Hungary and Poland led the fight for democracy from the front and it was there zealous efforts to obtain maximum growth through the democratic system that they were able to obtain good economic growth, in contrast to the two Balkan countries-Romania and Bulgaria. Thus, we see that our second issue is integral to the first issue. “Politics and other cultural factors like national self-respect contribute to economic growth, and that works the other way, too: successful nations are more and more assertive.”8 If we say that democracy (and hence its political system) were a greater success in Hungary and Poland then that was because they experienced a better economic conditions than the two other nations. We also realize that in spite of the efforts of communist regime, through its policies like the “New Course”, to bring about a change in economic conditions, their basic liability towards communism remained their weakness. Never can economic success be attained by completely neglecting capitalism, which was the case with them. They kept their ties with West- the capitalist and the rich- to a minimum, which changed with the change in regime, and thus there were better trade options. Also, the inclusion of the countries into EU meant better prospects for the countries and even though EU too was bearing the brunt of global recession but that was an important step for the countries towards a better future. The next issue that we take up is the human development in general which shall include education, health etc. This is quantitatively measured through HDI-the Human Development Index. HDI considers national income, health, and education as primary sources. Considering the enormity of the situation, it would not be wrong of us to think that the human development should have got better. People were expecting better living conditions and better prospects and shall be our expectation. However, before explaining the changes one should remember that human development and each of its area are not individual sections; instead each area affects the other, if there is lack of education at the basic level then one should not expect good results from higher departments similarly this higher education index will in turn affect industry, economy and in general the growth of the nation. Thus, we shall not jump to conclusions and shall rather approach the subject holistically. In general, during the transformation there was a fall in the living standards of the people. In 1989, Hungarian per capita GNP was US$2,620, Bulgarian per capita GNP was US$2,320, while in Poland and Romania it failed to reach US$2,000 (US$1,730 and US$1,890, respectively). At the same time, all four countries were far behind Western Europe, even if one considers the purchasing power parity of their currencies. Consumption followed the same pattern. The highest average calorie consumption was in Hungary at 3,499 calories per day; in Bulgaria it stood at 3,269, but was lower in Poland, at 2,891 and at Romania 2,949. Demographic indicators were satisfactory, although not excellent. Life expectancy at birth was the highest in Bulgaria (women 75.1, men 68.6) and Poland (75.5; 66.8). although it was also relatively high in Hungary (73.8; 65.4). Health conditions were acceptable, except in Romania. School enrolment rates were at acceptable levels. On the whole, the emergence of these social problems was in stark contrast to the full employment and social protection systems which gave the feeling of stability and security under late communism—especially for those who were less capable or ambitious.94 This explains the situation in the regions undergoing transition, living conditions or human development were not going good. The HDI figures in fact show a low for Hungary from 1990 to 1993.10 The situation seems to be grim, the problem was that with the initiatives to curb inflation and dealing with the demands of the stringent budget there were bound to be compromises made on one front, this turned out to be human development. Hungary was still the better of the four as the transition was more even here. However, the conditions were not so good in all the regions. Poland had a decrease in its real wages for the first two years of transition though then there was a steady increase later on. Here too, it was the Baltic countries suffering from the worst effect. “In Bulgaria, real wages declined sharply, by almost 40 per cent in 1991, over 15 per cent in 1994, and 45 per cent in 1996. Romania experienced a decrease in real wages until 1994 (double digits each year), but has reported increases since then.” 11 There was also a problem with the health services, an important indicator of human development. However, one should remember that mortality rates were also affected as a result of natural calamities and the various toxic wastes left by communists in the industrial sites. Therefore, even though the health services were not the best but they were good enough and as said before the transition was never meant to be an overnight miracle, it was just an effort to regain the lost pride and a better future for the coming generations. However, one thing that remained the weakness of the democratic system was the rise in inequality. Rise in inequality, which is a widening gap between the poor and the rich, has always remained a side effect of democracy. Seeing a transformation from communism, which curbs any sort of inequality, to democracy the countries were bound to experience a rise in inequality. “In general, in all four countries incomes were equally distributed just before the transition (Ginis at the range of .21 - .25), and they have remained relatively equal after the initial years of reforms - Ginis under 0.30, except in Bulgaria (.37). Hungary, however, is a special case, with a very low and almost unchanged inequality level (Gini .21 and .23).” 12 Thus, we see that though there was a rise in inequality but it wasn’t very high. Further, the rise shall be expected considering there was a rise in privatisation and inflation. However, the low levels of inequality rise are a good indicator. Here too Hungary is much better off than the rest and Romania the worst. Thus, we see that the third issue is an important one that integrates the other two issues. Economy is responsible for the human development ratio, which is in turn affected by the policies that are sanctioned by the political system. It is important to note that human development is the priority of any nation and regardless of the figures one shall not mistake them to be the ultimate source of our knowledge, people’s views are just as important. “The most surprising about the HDI graph steeply rising before 1964 and declining thereafter is that it is in sharp contrast to the living memory of the population, in which that date is the start of the ’goulash-communism’, the end of the much hated Rakosi-regime and the repression following the 1956 revolution.”13 Thus, we should not just consider the figures and should remember that in spite of the lower national income and a slight rise in inequality, democracy gave the people a voice of their own and a freedom that they enjoyed. They were happier than they were under communists’ and that is what matters. Coming to a conclusion about the transformation is not easy. It is not simple black and white. Democracy is not the ultimate answer to every problem. What is important is people’s attitude and their patience to allow the time bring their share of opportunities and good times. The transformation was a difficult time and people had to deal with the mess that communist regime left, however, the transformation was a step for a better future, and it did turn out to be one. Even though Romania and Bulgaria were slow in the process but there were reforms and this did good to the people. We can conclude that the step towards democracy was a wise decision made by these countries that brought them closer to holistic development. Taking the present times into consideration, one can say that the Eastern European countries made a wise decision as there is no place for archaic rules today that communism supports. Bibliography Chenoweth, Eric and Lasota, Irena. “Common Elements of Successful Opposition to Communism in Eastern Europe.” Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe. . 7 Dec. 2008. Diamond, Larry. The Spirit of Democracy. Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, 2008. Eckstein, Alexander. “National Income and Capital Formation in Hungary 1900-1950.” Income and Wealth, Series V, London, 1955. Ferge, Zsuzsa. "What are the Key Challenges and Dilemmas of the Next Quarter Century for Social Transfers and Human Resource Investments in Post-Communist Systems?" paper presented at the workshop 'Economic Transformation - Institutional Change and Social Sector Reform' organized by the National Research Council's Task Force on Economic Transition, mimeo (Washington, September 19-20, 1996). Huntley, James R. Pax Democratica, a Strategy for the 21st Century. Hampshire: Palgrave, 2001. Kochanowicz, Jacek. "The Transition to the Market and Democratization in Poland.” In A Precarious Balance: Democracy and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe, Joan M. Nelson, ed., (San Francisco: ICEG Press, 1994). Knecht, Peter A. “Background Notes: Hungary, December 1994.” U.S. Department of State Bureau of Public Affairs -- Office of Public Communication -- Washington, DC. Dec. 1994. . 8 Dec. 2008. Kramer, Mark. "Social Protection Policies and Safety Nets in East-Central Europe: Dilemmas of the Post-Communist Transformation," in Sustaining Transition: The Social Safety Net in Postcommunist Europe, by Ethan B. Kapstein and Micheal Mandelbaum (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1996). Márki-Zay, Peter. “Comparative analysis of the development of Hungary in the 20th Century.” Pázmány Péter Catholic University Faculty of humanities Doctoral School on History. 2005. . 8 Dec. 2008. Mitchell, B.R. “International Historical Statistics 1750-1993.” I-III, Stockton Press, New York, United States, 1988. Rose, Richard and Mishler, William T.E. “Mass Reaction to Regime Change in Eastern Europe: Polarization or Leaders and Laggards.” British Journal of Political Science 24 (1994): 159-182. Print. Rupnik, Jacques. “Journal of Democracy.” The John Hopkins University Press 10 (1999): 57-62. Print. Topiñska, Irena. “Transition to the Market and Poverty Alleviation Strategies:Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania.” University of Warsaw, Department of Economics. 21 June 1997. . 9 Dec. 2008. Read More