Post-totalitarian Societies in Transformation

Joanna Sondel-Cedarmas/Grzegorz Pożarlik/Elżbieta M. Mach

The construction of active civil society at the European level in post-totalitarian societies is a subject that has not been elaborated in the literature, despite its individual elements having been widely discussed in the academic discourse for a long time.¹ This study tackles the multidimensional nature of this process in Central and Eastern Europe, covering the period from the systemic transformations of these countries in 1989 to their accession to the EU in 2004. It does so in a broader comparative perspective, against the background of the experiences of classic post-totalitarian societies in Western and Southern Europe (German and Italy), which already underwent a process of democratic transformation in 1945 and went on to actively forge the European Community in 1950s. Such an approach allows for an in-depth analysis of the evolution of post-totalitarian societies in the so-called transition period between the undemocratic system and democratic consolidation,² while emphasizing the common features and fundamental differences related to political transformations.

Unlike the aforementioned post-fascist countries, where the totalitarian systems collapsed rapidly as a result of the downfall of dictatorships and the end of World War II, the post-totalitarian societies in Central and Eastern Europe had ←7 | 8→a longer route from communist totalitarianism to authoritarianism and – as a consequence of the systemic transformations in 1989 –to democracy.³

The reconstruction of the democratic rule of law, the transition from a command economy to a market economy, the rebirth of a civil society based on social pluralism, combined with an attempt to reckon with the totalitarian (or authoritarian) past, are, however, a common denominator to post-fascist Italy, post-Nazi Germany and post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes in Central and Eastern Europe regardless of different historical context in which these transformations took place. Undoubtedly, the social developments in Poland, (Czecho)Slovakia and Hungary, which initiated the democratization process in Central and Eastern Europe, are interlinked by a number of factors, such as a relatively high level of advancement of democratization, a certain community of political traditions, geographical proximity, economic cooperation or the similarity of strategic political goals.⁴

Central European experiences, however, differ substantively from those of Italy or Germany, where the systemic transformation underwent in 1943–1945 and which, due to their constitutive role in European integration processes, need to be acknowledged as founding nations of the European Community. In contrast to the ‘young democracies’ from Central and Eastern Europe – which declared their aspirations to join the EU immediately after the formation of the new political system in 1989 that followed the end of communism⁵ – in Italy and in Germany, the transition to democracy occured almost simultaneously with the process of the laying down of the foundations of a common Europe in the 1950’s.

The contributors to this volume, drawing on case study analyses of their own countries and societies, discuss the changes that have taken place at two ←8 | 9→key historical moments: 1) after the systemic transformation and/or political revolutions following 1989 and 2) after the EU’s Eastern enlargement. The analysis was carried out using a multidisciplinary research perspective, taking into account historical, sociological as well as political science and legal insights. This study draws on findings from the research and educational project entitled: ‘Shaping of the European citizenship in the post – totalitarian societies Reflections after 15 years of EU enlargement’. The project focused on the analysis of data on the condition of European society in Poland, Slovakia, and Italy seventeen years after the EU’s Eastern enlargement.

The volume is divided into three parts. The first part, introducing the conceptual matrix, presents and analyses – on the example of fascist Italy and the Third Reich – two different models of totalitarianism and totalitarian societies in Europe as well as discusses the models of political transformation in Central and Eastern Europe in 1989 after the fall of the Berlin Wall the the EU’s Eastern enlargement.⁶

The monograph opens with the chapter by Joanna Sondel-Cedarmas and Witold Stankowski entitled ‘Post-totalitarian societies in Western Europe: A comparative case study analysis of Italy and Germany.’ In this chapter the process of the systemic transformation in Italy and Germany in 1945– 46 is examined. A special emphasis is given to difficulties associated with building the democratic rule of law and coping with the legacy left by the previous undemocratic system. As noted by Sondel-Cedarmas and Stankowski, the process of strengthening democracy in both Germany and Italy coincided with the pro-European choice of the governments of Konrad Adenauer and Alcide De Gasperi to support the project of a common Europe. The following chapter by Tadeusz Kopyś, entitled ‘Models of systemic-economic transformation in Central and Eastern Europe,’ is a comparative analysis of the various models of systemic transformations in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in and after 1989. According to Kopyś, communist societies cannot be seen exclusively in terms of being oppressive and economically burdensome to maintain, but also as organisms that functioned and created specific legal and constitutional conditions. Assuming that the situation in the individual countries of Central and Eastern Europe was different, the author analyses the various communist systems, their social roots and genesis, ←9 | 10→distinguishing several models of transformation. The chapter by Elżbieta Mach and Zdzisław Mach is a panoramic analysis of the political and socio-cultural changes in Poland and Europe after 2004, i.e. at the time when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe acceded to the European Union. Perceiving one’s own social identity through the prism of the European identity and the European community of values was hampered in this cultural setting due to a deficit of liberal institutional mechanisms, a limited adherence to the civic concept of the political community, and the refusal to accept European diversity and pluralism. An important limitation in this context was the understanding of the nation as an ethnic community and (often unconscious) acceptance of populism, nationalism and xenophobia in their various incarnations. Such constraints were especially visible in Poland, where national-conservative Catholicism and nationalist sentiment limited the perception of the European Union solely to that of a donor, whose duty should be to support a Polish nation that was harmed by history.

Ewa Kozerska’s and Tomasz Scheffler’s chapters, discuss the complexity and turbulent character of institutional changes introduced during the process of ←10 | 11→the systemic transformation in Poland. Kozerska, in her contribution entitled ‘The legacy of the Polish People’s Republic in the doctrine and constitutional law in the first years of the transformation period in Poland,’ deals with selected problems of doctrine and constitutional law until the entry into force of the so-called Small Constitution of 1992. She highlights the fact that the direction of the changes initiated at that time related to the process of transforming the People’s Republic of Poland into a democratic rule of law was determined essentially during the ‘Round Table’ meetings held by the ruling party with the Solidarity democratic opposition in Magdalenka. The chapter claims the temporary normative solutions developed at that time indicated a more-likely verbal transformation of Poland’s systemic structures into the rule of law model than a genuine change.

Tadeusz Kopyś and Krzysztof Koźbiał, on the other hand, take up the issue of historical memory and generational memory as a means of creating national identity after 1989. Tadeusz Kopyś in his chapter ‘The Memory of a Difficult Past in Hungary (The Holocaust and the Treaty of Trianon)’ draws attention to the events such as the peace treaty in Trianon, the extermination of Jews during the Second World War, and the evaluation of the activities of Miklós Horthy, János Kádár and Imre Nagy, which are pivotal, complex and subject to political instrumental treatment in Hungarian public debate of 20th century national history. Krzysztof Koźbiał in his contribution on ‘The Czech memory of the most important figures and events of the communist period in Czechoslovakia (1945–1989)’ argues insightfully that despite functioning in one state organism, the Czech memory of the communist period is unquestionably different from the Slovak memory of that time. It consists mainly of momentous events, including the Prague Spring of 1968, and the memory of important – symbolic figures such as Jan Palach and Milada Horáková. This is evidenced by the multitude of monuments, celebrations and other commemorations in public space, such as street names. Interestingly, this memory usually lacks references to the presence ←11 | 12→and role of the Red Army in the history of post-war Czechoslovakia. Post-war Czechoslovakia was not a benchmark for the construction of an independent Czech state, with this role undoubtedly being played by the so-called First Republic which functioned in the years 1918–1938. For this reason, as indicated by public opinion polls, the vast majority of Czechs positively assess the changes that took place after the fall of communism in 1989.

European values and ideas par excellence refer essentially to liberal views, attaching great importance to the diversity of values and multiculturalism, human rights, and the doctrine of the rule of law and free market principles.⁷ These values, however, are contextualized through the diverse historical experience of other Central European societies in terms of the consequences of communist totalitarianism for the understanding of the national community, state community and civil society. In our analysis, we place a particular emphasis on explaining their distinctiveness, despite the similarities in the process of Europeanization of active civil society in Central and Eastern Europe compared to the experiences of Western and Southern European countries.

The symbolic anchor connecting the two parts of this volume is the contribution by Witold Stankowski, entitled ‘From a divided society to a united and European one: The reunification of Germany, the transformation in East Germany and Germany in Europe,’ showing the consequences of World War II for the German state and nation. This saw the emergence of the post-war bipolar division of the world, and at the same time an acceleration of integration tendencies in Western Europe. The fall of the Third Reich, who had been responsible for the outbreak of the armed conflict, led to questions about the future and shape ←12 | 13→of Germany being introduced into the fora of international politics. During the atmosphere of the Cold War, two German states emerged: West Germany, which functioned within the family of Western European democracies, and the GDR, a satellite of the Soviet Union and one of the countries of the so-called people’s democracies. After the reunification of Germany, the social divisions which had been perpetuated by the Cold War partition persisted. This is perhaps most clearly discernible in the ascription to the inhabitants of the former East Germany of the nickname ‘Ossis,’ with Germans from the western part being known as ‘Wessis.’

The issue of the Europeanization of Polish civil society is also raised by Grzegorz Pożarlik in his work entitled ‘Civil society in post-1989 Poland as a contentious society: Systemic transformation and the Europeanisation of civil society.’ Civil society in post-1989 Poland as a (predominantly, although not exclusively) contentious society. A major assumption of his contribution is that contention has been within the DNA of Polish civil society during the communist period and it still appears to be a significant mobilizing force in the public sphere in Poland nowadays. Grzegorz Pożarlik claims that European values as expressed in the EU’s constitutional framework and European civil society networking are referred to by civil society actors in ←13 | 14→Poland, who challenge what Jacques Rupnik identifies as ‘democratic backsliding’ in Central Europe.⁸