Is there life after 1989 for the old
This paper attempts to explain why in some post-communist countries, the old communist nomenklatura has successfully resisted, and in others did not. The collapse of the communist systems in Central and Eastern Europe did not necessarily mean the disappearance of the communist parties. Even if many collapsed, most of them attempted to adapt to the new political context. Some of the reformed communist parties successfully managed to adapt to the new political conditions, but others experienced serious problems in harmonizing the old coordinates of the party with the post-communist democratic requirements and expectations. How could the different paths of the communist parties in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 be explained? Why some of these parties were capable to realize a relatively successfully transition to the new conditions of democratic struggle, while others were less able in doing so?
For a more transparent comprehension of this paper, the term “old communist nomenklatura” needs to be explained. Through it, I refer to the ex-communist parties who have roots in the old regime. By roots, I designate as “old communist nomenklatura” only those parties which inherited the charge of the former communists’ property, membership and leadership. Because of their faithful and constant relationship with the communist party in the past, their ability and willingness to give up at being a further partisan of the old ideas, remains under question. There might be the possibility that the old communist nomenklatura would still want to perpetuate and to develop the old rules, which were supposed to be abandoned after 1989. Taking this risk into account, the question “how some reformed communist party (basically, constituted on the same old foundation and with the same old people) managed to survive successfully in the post-communist era and to fulfill the new democratic conditions”, is as natural as possible. A derivative question is why some of these parties accomplished a successful existence, even after 1989, representing in some countries the party in power, and some of them didn’t? What made the difference between two categories of ex-communist parties? I will try in this paper to give an answer to this question, sustained by logical arguments and empirical events. I will use the cases of two countries: Poland and Czech Republic.
Post-1991 developments, in particular the results of the elections in post-communist countries, did not confirm “the death of the Communism”, but just a light “transition to democracy”. Someone would have hardly anticipated the comeback to power of born-again “socialist” leaders and their reformed communist parties (which now, switched their names in socialist parties or democratic left), in many East-European countries following the events of 1989. Nonetheless, some of these parties proved themselves successfully to the public in order to remain into power. They succeeded in a democratic administration and governance of some post-communist countries, they had been able to inspirit the emergence of a functional democratic system with a proper state-apparatus, shaping the democratic form of these countries and stimulating their further successful development.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Cornelia Baciu (Autor), 2009, Is there life after 1989 for the old Communist nomenklatura? , München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/148660