Velvet revolution. Velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe

The expression "velvet revolution" appeared in the late 1980s - 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, radical, profound changes in the social, economic and political spheres that lead to the transformation of the whole social life, the change of the model of the organization of society.

What it is?

The Velvet Revolution is the common name for the processes that took place in the states of Central and Eastern Europe from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 became a kind of their symbol.

The name "velvet revolution" was the result of political upheavals because most of the states were bloodless (except for Romania, where there was an armed uprising and unauthorized reprisal with N. Ceausescu, former dictator, and his wife). Events everywhere, except for Yugoslavia, occurred relatively quickly, almost instantly. At first glance, the similarity of their scenarios and the coincidence in time is surprising. However, let's look at the causes and essence of these upheavals - and we will see that these coincidences are not accidental. This article will give a definition of the term "velvet revolution" briefly and help to understand its causes.

The events and processes that took place in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s sparked 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. We'll start with it.

Events in Czechoslovakia

In November 1989, there were fundamental changes in Czechoslovakia. The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia led to a bloodless overthrow of the communist system as a result of protests. The decisive impulse was the 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 announced a strike, and mass demonstrations began in many cities. On November 24, the first secretary and some other leaders of the Communist Party of the country resigned. On November 26, a grand rally took place in the center of Prague, with about 700,000 participants. On November 29, the parliament abolished the constitutional article on the leadership of the Communist Party. On December 29, 1989, Alexander Dubcek was elected chairman of the parliament, and Vaclav Havel was elected president of Czechoslovakia. The reasons for the "velvet revolution" in Czechoslovakia and other countries will be described below. We will also get acquainted with the opinions of authoritative experts.

The reasons for the "velvet revolution"

What are the reasons for such a radical breakdown in the social order? A number of scientists (for example, VK Volkov) see the internal objective causes of the 1989 revolution as a gap between productive forces and the nature of production relations. Totalitarian or authoritarian bureaucratic regimes became an obstacle to the scientific, technical and economic progress of countries, hampered the integration process even within the CMEA. Almost half a century of experience in the countries of South-Eastern and Central Europe showed that they were far behind the advanced capitalist states, even from those with whom they once were on the same level. For Czechoslovakia and Hungary, this comparison with Austria, for the GDR - with Germany, for Bulgaria - with Greece. GDR, leading the CMEA, according to the UN, in 1987 per 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 increased.

The sta- tistical character began to lag behind the countries of Eastern Europe. The management system with centralized rigid planning, and also super monopolism, the so-called command-administrative system generated inefficiency of production, its decay. This became especially noticeable in the 1950s and 1980s, when a new stage of the scientific and technical revolution, which brought Western Europe and the United States to a new, "post-industrial" level of development, was delayed in these countries. Gradually, towards the end of the 1970s, a tendency began to transform the socialist world into a secondary socio-political and economic force in the world arena. Only in the military-strategic field did he hold 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 infringed upon 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 break-up of relations between the USSR and Yugoslavia (which was subsequently the result of the "velvet revolution" in Yugoslavia), in the trials of Moscow pre-war, etc. The leadership of the ruling parties, in turn, adopting a dogmatic experience USSR, contributed to the change of local regimes by the Soviet type. All this gave birth to the feeling that such a system was imposed from the 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" in Hungary and Czechoslovakia took place). In the minds of people, the idea of the "Brezhnev doctrine" was fixed, that is, limited sovereignty. The majority of the population, comparing the economic situation of their country with the situation of their neighbors in the West, began involuntarily to unite political and economic problems. Infringement of national feelings, socio-political dissatisfaction had their impact in one direction. As a result, crises began. 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 60's, 70's and 80's. They, however, did not have a positive solution. These crises only helped to discredit the existing regimes, the accumulation of so-called ideological shifts, which usually precede political change, creating a negative assessment of the parties in power.

The USSR's influence

At the same time, they showed why the authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes were stable - they belonged to the ATS, to the "socialist commonwealth", they were under pressure from the leadership of the USSR. Any criticism of the existing reality, any attempts to make corrections to the theory of Marxism from the standpoint of creative understanding in the light of existing reality were declared "revisionism," "ideological diversions," etc. The lack of pluralism in the spiritual sphere, uniformity in culture and ideology led to ambiguity, political Passivity of the population, conformism, which disorganized the person morally. Of course, progressive intellectual and creative forces could not reconcile with this.

Weakness of political parties

Revolutionary situations in the countries of Eastern Europe began to emerge on a growing scale. Watching how the restructuring in the USSR is taking place , the population of these countries expected similar reforms in their homeland. However, at a decisive moment, the weakness of the subjective factor was revealed, namely the absence of mature political parties capable of making serious changes. The ruling parties lost their creative vein, the capacity for renewal for a long time of their uncontrolled rule. Their political character was lost, which only became a continuation of the state bureaucratic machine, and communication with the people was increasingly lost. These parties did not trust the intelligentsia, the youth paid insufficient attention, they could not find a common language with it. Their policy has lost the confidence of the population, especially after the leadership was increasingly corroded by corruption, personal enrichment began to flourish, and moral guidelines lost. It is worth noting the repression of dissatisfied, "dissenters" who practiced in Bulgaria, Romania, the GDR and other countries.

The ruling parties, which seemed powerful and monopolistic, separated from the state apparatus, gradually began to fall apart. The debates over the past (the opposition considered the Communist parties responsible for the crisis), the struggle between the "reformers" and the "conservatives" inside them all paralyzed to a certain extent the activities of these parties, they gradually lost their fighting capacity. And even in such conditions, when the political struggle was greatly aggravated, they still hoped that they had a monopoly on power, but miscalculated.

Was it possible to avoid these events?

Is "velvet revolution" inevitable? It was hardly possible to avoid it. First of all, this is due to internal causes, 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 restructuring that began in the USSR seemed to have given impetus to socialist renewal. But many leaders of the countries of Eastern Europe could not understand the urgent need for a radical reorganization of the whole society, were unable to accept the signals sent by the time itself. Accustomed only to receive instructions from above, the party masses were disoriented in this situation.

Why did not the leadership of the USSR intervene?

But why did the Soviet leadership, which sensed rapid changes in the countries of Eastern Europe, not interfere in the situation and did not remove the former leaders from power, their conservative actions that only increased the discontent of the population?

First, 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 statement of freedom of choice. This was clear to the opposition and the leadership of the countries of Eastern Europe. Some of this circumstance disappointed, others it "inspired".

Secondly, at multilateral and bilateral negotiations and meetings in the period from 1986 to 1989, the leadership of the USSR repeatedly declared the perniciousness of stagnation. But how did you react to this? Most of the heads of state in their actions did not show the desire for change, preferring to carry out only the minimum necessary changes, which did not affect the mechanism of the system of power that developed in these countries. So, only in words the restructuring in the USSR of the leadership of the BCP encouraged the restructuring in the USSR, trying with the help of many shocks in the country to maintain the current regime of personal power. The leaders of the CPC (M.Jakesh) and the SED (E. Honecker) resisted the changes, trying to limit their hopes that the perestroika in the USSR was doomed to fail, the influence of the Soviet example. They still hoped that with a relatively good standard of living still possible without serious reforms.

First, in a narrow structure, and then with the participation of all the representatives of the Politburo of the SED on October 7, 1989, in response to the arguments cited by Mikhail S. Gorbachev that it is urgent to take the initiative into their own hands, the leader of the GDR stated that one should not teach them Live, when in the shops of the USSR "there is not even salt." The people went out into the street the same evening, marking the beginning of the collapse of the GDR. N. Ceausescu in Romania stained himself with blood, betting on repression. And where reforms have passed with the preservation of the old structures and have not led to pluralism, real democracy and the market, they have only contributed to uncontrolled processes and corruption.

It became clear that without the military intervention of the USSR, without its safety net on the side of the operating regimes, their stability reserve turned out to be small. It is also necessary to take into account the psychological moods of citizens who played a big role, because people wanted change.

Western countries, in addition, were interested in that the opposition forces came to power. These forces they supported financially in 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 HSWP reform programs (in Hungary), strikes and mass demonstrations (in most countries) or revolt (the "velvet revolution" in Romania) Power passed into the hands of new political parties and forces. This was the end of an entire era. This is how the "velvet revolution" took place in these countries.

The essence of the changes

On this question Yu. K. Knyazev points out three points of view.

• The first. In four states (the "velvet revolution" in the GDR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania) at the end of 1989 there were people's democratic revolutions, thanks to which a new political course was launched. The revolutionary changes of 1989-1990 in Poland, Hungary and Yugoslavia were the rapid completion of evolutionary processes. Similar shifts since the end of 1990 began to occur in Albania.
• The second. "Velvet revolutions" in Eastern Europe are only apex coups, thanks to which alternative forces came to power, who did not have a clear program of social reorganization, and therefore they were doomed to failure and rapid withdrawal from the political arena of countries.
• The third. These events were counterrevolutions, and not revolutions, because they had an anticommunist character, were aimed at removing the ruling workers and communist parties from power and not supporting the socialist choice.

General direction of movements

The general direction of the movements, however, was one-sided, contrary to the diversity and specifics in different countries. These were statements against totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, gross violations of freedoms and citizens' rights, against social injustice in society, corruption of power structures, illegal privileges and low living standards of the population.

They were the 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 exit from the situation that was created. In other words, we are talking about democratic revolutions, and not about apex coups. This is indicated not only by numerous rallies and demonstrations, but also by the results of general elections held later in each country.

"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, developing according to the laws of civilized society, an efficient economy.

Velvet revolutions in Europe: the results of transformations

The countries of CEE (Central and Eastern Europe) are beginning to develop along the path of creating legal democratic states, a multi-party system, political pluralism. The transfer of power to the organs of state administration from the hands of the party apparatus was carried out. The new government bodies acted on a functional, rather than an industry basis. There is a balance between different branches, the principle of separation of powers.

In the CEE states, the parliamentary system finally stabilized. In none of them was the strong power of the president established, the presidential republic did not emerge. The political elite considered that after a 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 the presidential power, but public opinion and parliaments opposed this. The president did not define economic policy anywhere and assumed no responsibility for its implementation, that is, he was not the head of the executive branch.

The parliament holds 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 and parliamentary elections have become a manifestation of democracy.

What forces came to power?

In almost all CEE countries (except for the Czech Republic), power passed painlessly from one source to another. In Poland it happened in 1993, the "velvet revolution" in Bulgaria caused the transition of power in 1994, and in Romania - in 1996.

In Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary came to power the left forces, in Romania - the right. Soon after the "velvet revolution" was carried out in Poland, the Union of Left Centrist 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, led a new social-liberal government. In late 1994, the Bulgarian Socialists received 125 seats out of 240 in parliament as a result of the elections.

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

The political situation towards the end of the 1990s

However, soon the situation changed. In the elections to the Seimas of Poland in September 1997, the right-wing party "Election Action of Solidarity" won. In Bulgaria, in April the same year, right-wing forces won the elections to parliament. In Slovakia in May 1999, at the first presidential election, the victory was won by R. Schuster, a representative of the Democratic Coalition. In Romania, after the elections in December 2000, I. Iliescu, leader of the Socialist Party, returned to the presidency.

V. 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 in late 1997.

The formation of a new structure of society began, which was facilitated by political freedoms, the emerging market, high activity of the population. The reality is political pluralism. For example, in Poland by this time there were about 300 parties and various organizations - social democratic, liberal, Christian-democratic. Individual pre-war parties, such as the National-Scarin Party, which existed in Romania, were revived.

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. Monarchist moods that have increased in a number of countries (for example, in Bulgaria) are indicative. The former King Mihai in early 1997 was returned citizenship.