Democratic revolutions in Central and South-Eastern Europe became the biggest event of the second half of the 20th century. They resulted not only in cardinal internal changes in the countries of the Eastern European region. They predetermined a new alignment of forces in Europe, a new structure of economic and political relations between the great powers. The confrontation between East and West, between the USSR and the USA, has come to an end. The long, debilitating Cold War is over.

Before the East European countries, the question of the nature of cooperation with the European community and with the Soviet Union arose in a new way. In search of economic support, the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe turned their eyes to the West.

The Eastern European revolutions of 1989 would not have been conceivable without perestroika in the Soviet Union. The process of perestroika, the new attitude of the Soviet leadership to the western neighbors of the USSR as equal partners, the rejection of the policy of "limited sovereignty" - all this created new conditions for the struggle for the democratic reorganization of the Eastern European countries. However, their development prospects are still very controversial. Nationalist movements arose, leading in a number of countries to armed interethnic conflicts, as happened, for example, in 1991 in Yugoslavia. The weakened and demoralized communist parties were unable to oppose a real alternative program to the numerous opposition parties and organizations that came out under the slogans of democratic renewal. In the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, a multi-party political structure, political pluralism, and a democratic civil society began to take shape. The main directions of democratic reforms were also determined. They included the restoration of the regulatory role of the market and full-fledged commodity-money relations, the transition to a convertible currency, to a mixed economy and the coexistence of various forms of ownership, including the recognition of private property and the labor market, the dismantling of the administrative command system, the decentralization and democratization of economic life.

Thus, in the Eastern European countries, the process of a sharp breakdown of the economic and political structures of authoritarian-bureaucratic "socialism" is being carried out and a transition is being made to a new system of socio-economic and political institutions of modern society.

Book: Lecture Notes World History of the 20th Century

58. Democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe (1989-1991)

By the end of the 1980s, the totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe had exhausted their possibilities for the progress of society. The first symptoms of the crisis that was looming were the deterioration of the economic situation and the emergence of new social problems. Features appeared that were not inherent in totalitarian socialism - unemployment, inflation, falling living standards, those that were previously associated with the "conquest of socialism" began to disappear - stability, fixed prices. The totalitarian system has exhausted the last arguments in its defense. It turned out to be impossible to hush up and hide the scale of the crisis due to the greater openness of the Eastern European countries, as well as due to the lack of significant strategic resources that could mitigate the negative manifestations of the crisis. Mass dissatisfaction with the existing order made the former system of control over public consciousness ineffective, without which a totalitarian society cannot exist.

Attempts to suppress dissatisfaction with force were futile, because in itself the strengthening of the repressive nature of the regime would not solve economic problems, but only delayed the process of the fall of the totalitarian system. A striking example of this is the introduction of martial law in Poland, the cruelty of the regimes in Romania and Albania.

The crisis of the totalitarian regime in Eastern Europe turned out to be common. It included an economic, social, political and moral crisis. For the development of quantitative indicators (accumulation of discontent) into qualitative ones (change in the social structure), carriers of a new social system are needed. Under the conditions of a totalitarian system, the intellectuals (this is due to the specifics of their work, social status, etc.) and student youth, who are prone to accepting fresh ideas, can be carriers of democratic ideas. But these two strata of society, having no economic basis for their actions and being dependent on the same totalitarian state, are unable to carry out a social revolution. For social revolutions in the countries of Eastern Europe, an external impetus was needed that would weaken the totalitarian state. Perestroika in the USSR became such an impetus.

Perestroika contributed to the strengthening of the influence of reformist elements in the communist parties and the discrediting of the conservative neo-Stalinist leadership in these parties. It deprived the peoples of Eastern Europe of the fear of the possibility of Soviet intervention. MS Gorbachev in relations with the countries of Eastern Europe abandoned the "Brezhnev doctrine" and recognized the right of the peoples of these countries to independently choose the path of their development.

By their nature, the revolutions in Eastern Europe were democratic and anti-totalitarian. Except for Romania and Yugoslavia, the change of power took place peacefully.

In almost all countries, events unfolded with the coming to power of supporters of the "renewal of socialism" in the communist parties (Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania). Supporters of "renewal" in the very first democratic elections received a majority on a wave of criticism of totalitarianism, communism and communist parties. Having come to power, they carried out reforms that led not to the renewal of socialism, but to the construction of capitalism: the state sector of the economy was privatized, business was encouraged, and market structures were created. Pluralism and a multi-party system were proclaimed in the political sphere.

In foreign policy, a course was established for a radical reorientation to the West, the liquidation of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Pact Organization, and the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

Thus, first there was a change of power, and then the corresponding political (liberal democracy), social and economic bases (the creation of a socially oriented economy) rose under it. Neither the political, nor the social, nor the economic structures of Eastern European societies could keep up with such a rapid transition from totalitarianism to democracy. Morally, a significant part of the population was not prepared for life in a society where every man is for himself and the state no longer guarantees a relatively stable standard of living.

The difficulties of the revolutions were largely caused by the inconsistency of the political system with the principles of liberal democracy. The economic condition inherited made the transition of the economy to a market economy rather painful: a decline in production, inflation, and a decrease in the social status of a significant number of citizens.

At a certain stage of the revolution, a situation developed when dissatisfaction with socialism was replaced by dissatisfaction with democracy, which did not even have time to show its positive features. This created the prerequisites for a counter-revolution. The authority of the left forces, which have managed to adapt to new conditions, is growing again. They are taking decisive steps to return to power. This threatens democratization processes and slows down market reforms. Obviously, the transition from totalitarianism to democracy takes time and competent leadership.

The liberalization of regimes in some Eastern European countries led to an aggravation of interethnic contradictions and, as a result, the collapse of federations - Czechoslovakia (peacefully) and Yugoslavia, which became the scene of interethnic conflict, mass deportations, ethnic cleansing, the victims of which were more than 3 million Axis (refugees , wounded, killed.

The forty-year history of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe has come to an end. Totalitarianism turned out to be a temporary phenomenon, but it made it possible to make a breakthrough from backwardness to a relatively developed industrial economy. However, he could not solve the problems of the society that he himself created. The countries of totalitarian socialism lagged far behind the countries of the West.

The fall of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe has created a unique situation in Europe - it is turning into a single political, legal and civilizational space based on a socially oriented market economy, liberal democracy and the European idea. Revolutions have become another step towards the formation of the integrity of the world.

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 it is?

The "Velvet Revolution" is the general name for 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 kind of their symbol.

These political upheavals got the name "velvet revolution" 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 to 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 impulse 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. More than 500 people were injured as a result of the November 17 events.

On November 20, students went on strike, and mass demonstrations began in many cities. On November 24, the first secretary and some other leaders of the country's Communist Party resigned. 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. We will also get acquainted with the opinions of authoritative experts.

Causes of the Velvet Revolution

What are the reasons motivated by 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 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 the standard of living, the quality of medical care, social security, culture and education was widening.

The lagging behind of the countries of Eastern Europe began to acquire a stage character. 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 the national one. 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. This was facilitated by 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.

Influence of the USSR

At the same time, they showed why the authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes were stable - they belonged to the Department of Internal Affairs, to the "socialist commonwealth", and were under 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. Progressive intellectual and creative forces, of course, could not reconcile themselves to this.

Weakness of political parties

Increasingly began to emerge in the countries of Eastern Europe. Watching how restructuring is taking place in these countries, we expected similar reforms in our 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 confidence 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 that began about the past (the opposition considered the Communist Parties responsible for the crisis), the struggle between the "reformers" and "conservatives" within them - all this paralyzed the activity of these parties to a certain extent, 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 a "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 found themselves disoriented in this situation.

Why didn't the Soviet leadership intervene?

But why didn't the Soviet leadership, which foresaw 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 was clear to the opposition and the leadership of the countries of Eastern Europe. This circumstance disappointed some, it "inspired" others.

Secondly, at multilateral and bilateral negotiations and meetings between 1986 and 1989, the leadership of the USSR repeatedly declared the perniciousness 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 preserved, 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 SED Politburo, 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 was not worth teaching them to live when there is "not even salt" 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 stained himself with blood in Romania, relying on repression. And where the reforms took place with the preservation of the old 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 citizens, which played a big role, because people wanted change.

In the CEE states, the parliamentary system has finally stabilized. 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 determined the economic policy and did not take responsibility for its implementation, that is, he was not the head of the executive branch.

The full power lies with the parliament, the 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 and parliamentary elections have become a manifestation of democracy.

What forces came to power?

In almost all CEE states (except the Czech Republic), power passed painlessly from one hand to another. In Poland it happened 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 received 125 seats out of 240 in parliament as a result of elections.

In November 1996, power in Romania passed to the centre-right. E. Constantinescu became president. In 1992-1996, the Democratic Party was in power in Albania.

Political environment towards the end of the 1990s

However, the situation soon changed. The elections in September 1997 were won by the right-wing Solidarity Action Pre-Electoral Party. 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 December 2000 elections, I. Iliescu, the leader of the Socialist Party, returned to the presidency.

V. Havel remains 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, the emerging market, and the 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.

The processes of change in the USSR, the restructuring of Soviet foreign policy gave impetus to transformations in Eastern Europe. As soon as it became clear that the Soviet Union no longer intended to support the ruling regimes in Eastern Europe by force of arms, supporters of reforms became more active and opposition forces emerged from the underground. The political parties abandoned the bloc with the communists, the communist parties entered into a state of deep crisis.

In Hungary, in 1988, anti-communist political organizations began to emerge. The Hungarian communists made concessions. The country adopted a new constitution. A multi-party system was introduced. The ruling party changed its name to a socialist one, yet it received less than 10% of the vote in the 1989 elections. The greatest support of voters was achieved by the Democratic Forum, an association of right-wing parties.

In Czechoslovakia in 1989, mass anti-communist demonstrations began. Opposition political organizations emerged. Many members of the Federal Assembly (Parliament) left the ranks of the Communist Party. By a majority vote, the Federal Assembly excluded from the country's constitution the provision on the leading role of the Communist Party.

In the new government, the Communists were in the minority. The “cleansing” of the army, police, and state security agencies from the influence of the communists began. In the 1990 elections, the Civic Forum won the majority of votes.

Mass strikes broke out in Poland in 1988. In 1989, the government entered into negotiations with Solidarity, which had emerged from the underground. According to the agreement reached, a four-year transitional period to democracy is being established in the country. The communists did not find support in society. The government was formed by Solidarity, and its leader L. Walesa was elected president of Poland in 1990.

The only Eastern European state where the democratic revolution took on an armed form, due to the fact that the authorities did not make concessions, was Romania. As a result of the popular uprising in 1989, the regime of power of N. Ceausescu was swept away, and he himself was executed.

The events in the GDR had a great influence on the situation in Europe and the world. The political crisis was exacerbated by the exodus of the population to West Germany. The leaders of the Communist Party have resigned. The new leaders tried to establish a dialogue with the opposition, in particular by removing the paragraph on the leading role of the Communist Party from the Constitution. They formed coalitions focused on democratic reform. Nevertheless, the population of the GDR voted for the parties that put forward the slogan of the unification of the GDR and the FRG. In 1990, an agreement was signed on the unification of Germany.

With the fall of the Soviet model of socialism in the countries of Eastern Europe in 1991, the Warsaw Pact and the Comecon were disbanded. Eastern European countries began to reorient their economic ties to the West, reducing trade with the USSR.

The transition from perestroika to a democratic revolution was marked by a change in the form of the political regime, especially in the Soviet Union. It was necessary to weaken the total control of the state over other spheres of life in Soviet society, thereby dividing power and laying the foundations of civil society.

From perestroika to democratic revolution

The initial goal of perestroika was considered to be the release of resources for the development of society. This included the end of the Cold War, the expansion of the independence of individual enterprises and the emergence of new elements of market relations in the economy.

Such a transformation was supposed to be an incentive for increased productivity and a more efficient economy. Similar processes unfolded in the countries of Eastern Europe. Two directions arose here: in some countries, the leaders of the ruling parties independently introduced such transformations, while in others, opposition movements and parties became the initiators.

Romania was the only state in Eastern Europe in which no changes took place. In 1989, a popular uprising took place, after which the leader of the state, N. Ceausescu, was shot and the regime of his personal power was terminated.

A wave of popular uprisings in favor of a democratic regime caused political crises in the countries of Eastern Europe. Part of the population of the GDR chose to flee to West Germany. And the new leaders tried to improve relations with the opposition in view of the new reforms.

The main purpose of this was to create new coalitions that could support the peaceful course of change. But despite this, the communists were no longer in power, as before, now the leadership of the states had an opposition.

Eastern Europe

Economic and political ties were now oriented towards the Euro-Atlantic states, especially after the countries' refusal to participate in the Warsaw Pact Organization. Eastern European countries signed an agreement with the European Union in 1991, and in 1994 they entered into the Partnership for Peace program with NATO.

Most of the leaders of the communist parties changed the program settings of their policies in order to bring them closer to a market economy and social democratic ideas. This was necessary in order to provide countries with a democratic regime, but not to switch to a market economy too quickly - such an accelerated course led countries to inflation and unemployment.

It was rather difficult to carry out transformations in Yugoslavia, in which the political regime with signs of totalitarianism was partially preserved. Yugoslavia was mired in interethnic and interreligious conflicts, which led the country to disintegration.

Crisis in the USSR

The collapse of the multinational state was due to differences in the directions of transformation of the various union republics. The problem was that before the new institutions of power were created, the old ones could no longer function effectively.

Democratic princes hardly got along among the party functionaries, they got used to the ideology of their parties. M. Gorbachev's policy caused dissatisfaction among many, especially his desire to improve relations with the West. And the leader B. Yeltsin, who took an opposition position in relation to the CPSU and the allied authorities, evoked approval from society.

Along with this, the issue of nationalism is aggravated - the contradictions between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 1988, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are striving to secede from the USSR. All this leads to negative consequences in the form of national purges, and interethnic relations in South Ossetia, Moldova and Georgia reach the peak of the conflict.

Local leaders reject the idea of ​​renewing the Union between countries and openly show that every union center needs independence. This also had a strong impact on the economy, by 1990 inflation reached 10% and industrial production was declining.

A significant deterioration in the efficiency of the economy leads to an increase in the strike movement in 1991. There are constant clashes between the left and the right, the republics and the center. President Gorbachev is no longer supported by his own party, and in August 1991 they try to remove him from power.