The expression "velvet revolution" appeared in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It does not fully reflect the nature of the events described in the social sciences by the term "revolution". This term always means qualitative, fundamental, profound changes in the social, economic and political spheres, which lead to the transformation of the entire social life, a change in the model of the structure of society.
What is this?
"Velvet Revolution" is the general name of the processes that took place in the states of Central and Eastern Europe in the period from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 has become a symbol of their kind.
The name "velvet revolution" these political upheavals received because in most states they were carried out without bloodshed (except for Romania, where there was an armed uprising and unauthorized reprisals against N. Ceausescu, the former dictator, and his wife). Events everywhere except Yugoslavia happened relatively quickly, almost instantaneously. At first glance, the similarity of their scenarios and coincidence in time is surprising. However, let's look into the causes and essence of these upheavals - and we will see that these coincidences are not accidental. This article will briefly define the term "velvet revolution" and help you understand its causes.
The events and processes that took place in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and early 90s arouse the interest of politicians, scientists, and the general public. What are the causes of the revolution? And what is their essence? Let's try to answer these questions. The first in a whole series of similar political events in Europe was the "velvet revolution" in Czechoslovakia. Let's start with her.
Events in Czechoslovakia
In November 1989, fundamental changes took place in Czechoslovakia. The "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia led to the bloodless overthrow of the communist regime as a result of protests. The decisive impetus was a student demonstration organized on November 17 in memory of Jan Opletal, a student from the Czech Republic who died during protests against the occupation of the state by the Nazis. As a result of the events of November 17, more than 500 people were injured.
On November 20, students went on strike, and mass demonstrations broke out in many cities. On November 24, the first secretary and some other leaders resignedcountry's communist party. On November 26, a grand rally was held in the center of Prague, which was attended by about 700 thousand people. On November 29, Parliament repealed the constitutional article on the leadership of the Communist Party. On December 29, 1989, Alexander Dubček was elected Speaker of the Parliament, and Václav Havel was elected President of Czechoslovakia. The causes of the "velvet revolution" in Czechoslovakia and other countries will be described below. Let's also get acquainted with the opinions of authoritative experts.
Causes of the "velvet revolution"
What are the reasons for such a radical breakdown of the social order? A number of scientists (for example, V. K. Volkov) see the internal objective causes of the 1989 revolution in the gap between the productive forces and the nature of production relations. Totalitarian or authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes have become an obstacle to the scientific, technical and economic progress of countries, hindered the integration process even within the CMEA. Almost half a century of experience of the countries of Southeast and Central Europe has shown that they are far behind the advanced capitalist states, even from those with whom they were once on the same level. For Czechoslovakia and Hungary, this is a comparison with Austria, for the GDR - with the FRG, for Bulgaria - with Greece. The GDR, leading in the CMEA, according to the UN, in 1987 in terms of GP per capita occupied only 17th place in the world, Czechoslovakia - 25th place, the USSR - 30th. The gap in living standards, the quality of medical care, social security, culture and education was widening.
Stadial character began to acquirebehind the countries of Eastern Europe. The management system with centralized rigid planning, as well as super-monopoly, the so-called command-administrative system, gave rise to inefficiency in production, its decay. This became especially noticeable in the 1950s and 1980s, when a new stage of scientific and technological revolution was delayed in these countries, bringing Western Europe and the USA to a new, "post-industrial" level of development. Gradually, towards the end of the 1970s, a tendency began to turn the socialist world into a secondary socio-political and economic force on the world stage. Only in the military-strategic field did he have strong positions, and even then mainly because of the military potential of the USSR.
National factor
Another powerful factor that brought about the "Velvet Revolution" of 1989 was national. National pride, as a rule, was hurt by the fact that the authoritarian-bureaucratic regime resembled the Soviet one. The tactless actions of the Soviet leadership and representatives of the USSR in these countries, their political mistakes acted in the same direction. This was observed in 1948, after the rupture of relations between the USSR and Yugoslavia (the result of which was then the "velvet revolution" in Yugoslavia), during the trials on the model of the Moscow pre-war, etc. The leadership of the ruling parties, in turn, adopting dogmatic experience The USSR contributed to the change of local regimes according to the Soviet type. All this gave rise to the feeling that such a system was imposed from outside. Thiscontributed to the intervention of the leadership of the USSR in the events that took place in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968 (later the "velvet revolution" took place in Hungary and Czechoslovakia). The idea of the Brezhnev Doctrine, that is, limited sovereignty, was fixed in the minds of people. The majority of the population, comparing the economic situation of their country with that of their neighbors in the West, began to unwittingly link together political and economic problems. The infringement of national feelings, socio-political dissatisfaction exerted their influence in one direction. As a result, crises began. On June 17, 1953, the crisis occurred in the GDR, in 1956 - in Hungary, in 1968 - in Czechoslovakia, and in Poland it occurred repeatedly in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They, however, did not have a positive resolution. These crises only contributed to the discrediting of existing regimes, the accumulation of so-called ideological shifts that usually precede political changes, and the creation of a negative assessment of the parties in power.
USSR influence
At the same time, they showed why the authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes were stable - they belonged to the Department of Internal Affairs, to the "socialist commonwe alth", experienced pressure from the leadership of the USSR. Any criticism of the existing reality, any attempts to correct the theory of Marxism from the standpoint of creative understanding, taking into account the existing reality, were declared "revisionism", "ideological sabotage", etc. The absence of pluralism in the spiritual sphere,uniformity in culture and ideology led to doublethink, political passivity of the population, conformism, which corrupted the personality morally. This, of course, could not be accepted by progressive intellectual and creative forces.
Weak political parties
Increasingly, revolutionary situations began to emerge in the countries of Eastern Europe. Watching how perestroika was going on in the USSR, the population of these countries expected similar reforms in their homeland. However, at the decisive moment, the weakness of the subjective factor was revealed, namely the absence of mature political parties capable of implementing serious changes. During the long period of their uncontrolled rule, the ruling parties have lost their creative spirit and the ability to renew themselves. Their political character was lost, which became just a continuation of the state bureaucratic machine, communication with the people was increasingly lost. These parties did not trust the intelligentsia, they did not pay enough attention to the youth, they could not find a common language with them. Their policy lost the trust of the population, especially after the leadership was increasingly corroded by corruption, personal enrichment began to flourish, and moral guidelines were lost. It is worth noting the repressions against the dissatisfied, "dissenters", which were practiced in Bulgaria, Romania, the GDR and other countries.
The ruling parties that seemed powerful and monopoly, having separated from the state apparatus, gradually began to fall apart. The disputes about the past that began (the opposition considered the Communist parties responsible for the crisis), the struggle between"reformers" and "conservatives" within them - all this to a certain extent paralyzed the activities of these parties, they gradually lost their combat effectiveness. And even in such conditions, when the political struggle became very aggravated, they still hoped that they had a monopoly on power, but they miscalculated.
Could these events have been avoided?
Is the "velvet revolution" inevitable? It could hardly have been avoided. First of all, this is due to internal reasons, which we have already mentioned. What happened in Eastern Europe is largely the result of the imposed model of socialism, the lack of freedom for development.
The perestroika that began in the USSR seemed to give impetus to socialist renewal. But many leaders of the countries of Eastern Europe failed to understand the already urgent need for a radical restructuring of the entire society, they were unable to accept the signals sent by the time itself. Accustomed only to receiving instructions from above, the party masses turned out to be disoriented in this situation.
Why didn't the leadership of the USSR intervene?
But why didn't the Soviet leadership, which anticipated imminent changes in the countries of Eastern Europe, intervene in the situation and remove the former leaders from power, whose conservative actions only increased the discontent of the population?
Firstly, there could be no question of forceful pressure on these states after the events of April 1985, the withdrawal of the Soviet Army from Afghanistan and the declaration of freedom of choice. This iswas clear to the opposition and the leadership of the countries of Eastern Europe. Some were disappointed by this circumstance, others were "inspired" by it.
Secondly, at multilateral and bilateral negotiations and meetings in the period from 1986 to 1989, the leadership of the USSR repeatedly stated the harmfulness of stagnation. But how did they react to it? Most of the heads of state in their actions did not show a desire for change, preferring to carry out only the bare minimum of necessary changes, which did not affect the mechanism of the system of power that had developed in these countries as a whole. Thus, the leadership of the BKP only verbally welcomed perestroika in the USSR, trying to maintain the current regime of personal power with the help of many upheavals in the country. The heads of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (M. Jakes) and the SED (E. Honecker) resisted the changes, trying to limit them with hopes that perestroika in the USSR was supposedly doomed to fail, the influence of the Soviet example. They still hoped that with a relatively good standard of living, they could do without serious reforms for the time being.
First in a narrow format, and then with the participation of all representatives of the Politburo of the SED On October 7, 1989, in response to the arguments cited by M. S. Gorbachev that it was urgent to take the initiative into their own hands, the leader of the GDR said, that it is not worth teaching them how to live when "there is not even s alt" in the stores of the USSR. The people took to the streets that same evening, marking the beginning of the collapse of the GDR. N. Ceausescu in Romania stained himself with blood, relying on repression. And where the reforms took place with the preservationold structures and did not lead to pluralism, real democracy and the market, they only contributed to uncontrolled processes and decay.
It became clear that without the military intervention of the USSR, without its safety net on the side of the existing regimes, their margin of stability proved to be small. It is also necessary to take into account the psychological mood of the citizens, which played a big role, because people wanted change.
Western countries, in addition, were interested in the fact that the opposition forces came to power. They supported these forces financially in the election campaigns.
The result was the same in all countries: during the transfer of power on a contractual basis (in Poland), the exhaustion of confidence in the reform programs of the HSWP (in Hungary), strikes and mass demonstrations (in most countries) or an uprising ("velvet revolution" in Romania) power passed into the hands of new political parties and forces. It was the end of an entire era. This is how the "velvet revolution" took place in these countries.
Essence of the changes that have taken place
On this issue, Yu. K. Knyazev indicates three points of view.
- First. In four states (the "Velvet Revolution" in the GDR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania), people's democratic revolutions took place at the end of 1989, thanks to which a new political course began to be implemented. The revolutionary changes of 1989-1990 in Poland, Hungary and Yugoslavia were the rapid completion of evolutionary processes. Similar shifts began to take place in Albania since the end of 1990.
- Second. The "velvet revolutions" in Eastern Europe are only the top coups, thanks to which alternative forces came to power, which did not have a clear program of social reorganization, and therefore they were doomed to defeat and an early departure from the political arena of countries.
- Third. These events were counter-revolutions, not revolutions, because they were anti-communist in nature, they were aimed at removing the ruling workers and communist parties from power and not supporting the socialist choice.
General direction of movement
The general direction of movement, however, was one-sided, despite the diversity and specificity in different countries. These were speeches against totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, gross violations of the freedoms and rights of citizens, against the social injustice in society, corruption in power structures, illegal privileges and the low standard of living of the population.
They were a rejection of the one-party state administrative-command system, which plunged all the countries of Eastern Europe into deep crises and failed to find a worthy way out of the situation. In other words, we are talking about democratic revolutions, and not about top coups. This is evidenced not only by numerous rallies and demonstrations, but also by the results of the subsequent general elections held in each of the countries.
"Velvet revolutions" in Eastern Europe were not only "against", but also "for". For the establishment of true freedom and democracy, social justice,political pluralism, improvement of the spiritual and material life of the population, recognition of universal values, an efficient economy developing according to the laws of a civilized society.
Velvet revolutions in Europe: results of transformations
Countries of CEE (Central and Eastern Europe) are beginning to develop along the path of creating legal democratic states, a multi-party system, and political pluralism. The transfer of power to the organs of state administration from the hands of the party apparatus was carried out. The new public authorities acted on a functional, not sectoral, basis. A balance between different branches is ensured, the principle of separation of powers.
The parliamentary system has finally stabilized in the CEE states. In none of them did the strong power of the president establish itself, nor did a presidential republic emerge. The political elite considered that after the totalitarian period, such power could slow down the course of the democratic process. V. Havel in Czechoslovakia, L. Walesa in Poland, J. Zhelev in Bulgaria tried to strengthen presidential power, but public opinion and parliaments opposed this. The president nowhere defined economic policy and did not take responsibility for its implementation, that is, he was not the head of the executive branch.
Parliament has full power, executive power belongs to the government. The composition of the latter is approved by the parliament and monitors its activities, adopts the state budget and the law. Free presidential andparliamentary elections have become a manifestation of democracy.
Which powers came to power?
In almost all CEE states (except the Czech Republic), power passed painlessly from one hand to another. It happened in Poland in 1993, the Velvet Revolution in Bulgaria caused a transition of power in 1994, and in Romania in 1996.
In Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary, the left forces came to power, in Romania - the right. Shortly after the "Velvet Revolution" was carried out in Poland, the Union of Left Center Forces won the parliamentary elections in 1993, and in 1995 A. Kwasniewski, its leader, won the presidential elections. In June 1994, the Hungarian Socialist Party won the parliamentary elections, D. Horn, its leader, headed the new social liberal government. The Socialists of Bulgaria at the end of 1994 won 125 seats out of 240 in parliament as a result of elections.
In November 1996, power passed to the center-right in Romania. E. Constantinescu became president. In 1992-1996, the Democratic Party was in power in Albania.
Political situation towards the end of the 1990s
However, things soon changed. In the elections to the Sejm of Poland in September 1997, the right-wing party "Pre-election Action of Solidarity" won. In Bulgaria, in April of the same year, right-wing forces also won the parliamentary elections. In Slovakia in May 1999, in the first presidential elections, R. Schuster, a representative of the Democratic Coalition, won. In Romania, after the elections in December 2000, I. Iliescu returned to the presidency, leaderSocialist Party.
B. Havel remains president of the Czech Republic. In 1996, during the parliamentary elections, the Czech people deprived V. Klaus, the prime minister, of support. He lost his post at the end of 1997.
The formation of a new structure of society began, which was facilitated by political freedoms, an emerging market, and high activity of the population. Political pluralism is becoming a reality. For example, in Poland by this time there were about 300 parties and various organizations - social democratic, liberal, Christian democratic. Separate pre-war parties were revived, for example, the National Tsaranist Party that existed in Romania.
However, despite some democratization, there are still manifestations of "hidden authoritarianism", which is expressed in the high personification of politics, the style of public administration. The growing monarchical sentiments in a number of countries (for example, in Bulgaria) are indicative. Former King Mihai was given citizenship back in early 1997.
