The Revolution in East Germany in 1989. A Peaceful Revolution?

Table of content

Abstract:

1. Introduction

2. Definition of Revolution

3. Rational Action Theory

4. Analysis of Revolution in East Germany 1989
4.1 Change
4.2 Forcible (violent) change
4.3 Mass mobilization

5. Reasons for the non-violent character of the Peaceful Revolution

6. Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix
Interview 1
Interview 2
Interview 3

Germany 1989 - a Peaceful Revolution

Abstract: This paper discusses the classic understanding of the Revolution. The excluding criteria of violence will be challenged upon the revolutionary process in East Germany in October 1989. Furthermore, the reasons for the non-violent participation in the protest will be analyzed upon a structural- behavioral approach within the Ration Action Theory. According to the analysis, the non-violence protests were the most effective, morally accepted and less provoking strategy for the GDR citizens. Behavioral and structural components influenced their decision. The refrain from violence is due to an interplay between the people and the political elite.

Keywords: Peaceful Revolution, revolutions, human rights, unification, rational choice theory

1. Introduction

1989 became an historically important year for Germany and the whole of Europe: The fall of the Wall on November 9th became a symbol for the self-liberation of East Germans. It marked the end of an authoritarian soviet Era and the reunification of one of the economically strongest nations in Europe. Today 30 years later the Peaceful Revolution is celebrated as a unique spontaneous and non-violent revolution in Germany.

The GDR (German Democratic Republic) citizens reached for freedom during the Monday demonstrations in main cities Leipzig, Dresden, and East-Berlin after they were oppressed for 40 years by a socialist totalitarian regime. Elementary human rights such as freedom of travel, speech, and information were taken away from them. During one month, October 1989, East Germans started writing history: the dictatorship was peacefully challenged with demonstrations and rallies and then completely swept away. Divided Germany and Europe were gone. October 9 is seen as a milestone in Germany's road to freedom and finally resulted in the Fall of the Wall on November 9.

In the past, Germans were considered to be a folk “unable or unwilling to revolve” because the German uprising never reached the glamor of the Great revolutions. The science had problems to raise public awareness upon German revolutions like those of 1848/49, 1918/19 or the latest uprising against the SED (Socialist Unity Party of Germany) dictatorship in 1953. On the other hand, several existing kinds of literature sufficiently debate the fall of the wall and reunification.

In my paper, I would like to examine the term Peaceful Revolution and its outstanding characteristic of peaceful. The paper consists of two parts: First, in the theoretical part, the definition and framework of the Revolution will be discussed. The paper concentrates on the nonviolent aspect through a behavioral- rational approach which will be also introduced to the reader. In the second part, the paper will discuss if the process in East-Germany 1989 fulfills the conditions of a Revolution. Furthermore, the reasons why people participated in demonstrations in autumn 1989, especially why the people choose a nonviolent way, will be viewed. Finally, the findings will be summarized in the conclusion. The paper follows the research question: Why did the protest in Autumn 1989 in East Germany remain peaceful? How does the Peaceful Revolution challenge the classic definition of Revolution?

In order to answer the research question, primary (academic scientific papers, reports, and interviews) and secondary sources (journal and newspaper articles) will be used. Direct information and interviews with contemporary witnesses can help evaluate how their decisions for non-violent action were made. The paper is taking the timeframe of the revolutionary process in October 1989 into focus.

2. Definition of Revolution

Revolution is a centerpiece of all theories about society (Kimmel 1990). To understand society, Revolution as a condition is crucial because it provides a lens through which social order, value consensus, and a division of labor could be analyzed. Due to its importance, various theories of revolution have been offered by scholars of politics, history and social science. Most agree that revolutions involve a (forcible) change in government and institutions and mass participation (Kimmel 1990).

Mass mobilization is involving a considerable number of people “and motivates a wide range of partners and allies at national and local levels to raise awareness of and demand for a particular development objective through dialogue. Members of institutions, community networks, civic and religious groups and others work in a coordinated way to reach specific groups of people for dialogue with planned messages” (UNICEF). Goldstone (2014) to mass mobilization in his definition: Revolution is “the forcible overthrow of a government through mass mobilization (whether military or civilian or both) in the name of social justice, to create new political institutions”. Mass mobilization is often used as an instrument for social movements, but can also become a tool of elites and the state itself. Mobilization of the civil population aims a high degree of political salience (Carnegie Europe, 2019). In short, social (mass) mobilization seeks to facilitate change through a range of players engaged in an organizational effort.

The precondition is the state as a political entity, political power is concentrated in the government. Revolutions indicate a major break of the government rules and introduce a fundamental change in the political organizations (Baecheler, 1975; Neumann 1949, cited in Kimmel 1990). Thereby institutional change is a crucial criteria for Revolution. As it was similarly pointed out by Trimberger (1978 cited in Kimmel 1990): Revolution is “an extralegal takeover of the central state apparatus which destroys the economic and political power of the dominant social group of the old regime.” When distinguishing Revolution from other social movements, such as the Reform movement, the condition of the form of changing the system is important. To reform means to change existing government institutions including limit corruption, free voting rights for the people, or greater autonomy to a region (Goldstone, 2014). Institutional change is the goal of the Reform movement while overthrowing the existing government is the key to a revolutionary process. Change is rather the “formation of a new body politic, where the liberation from oppression aim(s) at least at the constitution of freedom (Arendt, 1965 cited in Kimmel, 1990). Transformation also refers to a broader profound change in the structure of society. New thinking prevails, norms and ideals are proclaimed as the spiritual foundations of a new social and political order.

The characteristic of forcible (violent) action has been defined by many social scientists as a crucial element in the definition of revolution. Violence is the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy (Merriam-Webster-Dictionary). Violence power can be either actual violence or simply the threat of violence. A number of revolutions in the modern era were succeeded by civil wars or by the forceful overthrow of the government. „Only when a leader with a revolutionary vision builds an army to overthrow the government in order to realize that vision (..) and if that campaign succeeds and then transforms political institutions, then it is a revolution“ (Goldstone, 2014). Revolution is seen as a “form of massive, violent and rapid social change” (Dunn cited in Kimmel 1990). Likewise, Zagorin (1982), Calvert (1970), Friedrich (1966) and Huntington (1968 cited in Kimmel 1990) see a strong link between the element of violent struggle against the oppressor and a successful change of order. Gurr added the argument that that dissatisfaction in society led to violent political activity (Gurr, 1970 cited in Opp, Voss, Gern 1995).

On the other hand, there are non-violent Revolutions. Non-violent means when a protest arises in which people ensure no physical harm and objects are not damaged. It means the use of peaceful means, not force, to bring about political or social change (Oxford Dictionary). The “violent change” in Revolutions has to be challenged and considered controversial since the paper is dealing with the Peaceful Revolution in 1989. The paper makes use of a simpler and more fluid definition: “Revolutions are attempts by subordinate groups to transform the social foundations of political power” (Kimmel 1990). To address the consistency of revolution and explain historical cases of revolution, Kimmel (1990) stresses out several elements: changes, causes, reasons for participation and consequences of revolution. In this paper, the reasons for (non-violent) participation in Revolutions will be further debated with the use of the Rational Action Theory.

3. Rational Action Theory

The base of the theory is the assumption that complex social phenomena can be explained in terms of individual action (Scott 2000). In theory, individuals have been placed in the center as key historical actors. Citizens are the units of the analysis (Opp, Voss, Gern, 1995). The Rational Action Theory consists of three propositions: The first proposition assert that human behavior is goal-oriented. Preferences determine human behavior. Individuals act in order to reach their goals by taking constraints and opportunities into account (Opp, Voss, Gern, 1995). Scott (2000) implicit the idea that all individual actions are rational in character and that people are calculating their costs (constraints) and benefits (opportunities). This theory includes incentives as crucial elements for the emergence of protest.

The amount of dissatisfaction that motivate individuals to participate, the effect of which individual believe themselves able to make a political change by means of their actions (perceived personal influence), state sanctions, moral and social incentives trigger the revolutionary process. Strong discontent only matters if individuals perceive that they are politically influential. Negative sanctions could consist in state repression, positive sanctions in social support, approval, and recognition by other actors. The integration into a social network (friends, family, relatives) is related to protest behavior (Opp 2013). Moral and social incentives go along with norms and expectations in society, for instance, the duty of being a good citizen and avoiding bad conscience.

The sum of incentives forms the behavioral consequence. The third hypothesis states that the behavior with the highest value (utility maximization) is chosen (Opp, 2013).

As mass mobilization in Revolution is one of the main elements of the Rational Action Theory, the behavior of collective actors needed to be explained. Individual behaviors aggregate to collective action as a result of the decisions of individual actors. But the growth of social movement still depends on incentives like the risk of negative state sanctions. Opp, Voss, and Gern (1995) argue that „the larger the number of people, the more the gathering will be considered a protest, and the less will be the personal risk a participant expects“. The collective efficacy has an indirect effect on participation. Furthermore, the emotional attachment and the identification of an individual actor with a movement is beneficial and lead to involvement in protest (Opp, 1999).

In the previous section, the paper focused on the behavioral explanation of reasons for participation in protests, but the structural conditions should also be taken into account. The individual choices are influenced and shaped by a complex set of structural and ideational components. James Davies (1962) and Ted Gurr (1970), argued that social change rise alongside an expansion in social, economic, and political opportunities (cited in Lawson, 2016). The structuralist Goldstone (2003 cited in Lawson, 2016) among others sees Revolutions as determined by the emergence of particular structural alignments. Kimmel (1990) underlines the historical shape of revolution: “Revolutions have their structural roots deeply embedded in the society's past” (Kimmel 1990). He distinguishes three temporal moments: the preconditions, the precipitants and the trigger. Several current approaches highlight the necessarily international features of revolutionary change. For instance, Pollack is following a social system perspective (1990) by emphasizing foreign policy conditions and the internal system crisis.

But structures or individual behavior alone cannot provide why revolutions take place. The combinations among economic, political, social, cultural, religious, and ideological forces can cause a Revolution (Kimmel,1990). To overcome the separation of individualistic perspectives and structural perspectives, the paper suggests an adequate behavioral -structural model.

4. Analysis of Revolution in East Germany 1989

“Revolutions are attempts by subordinate groups to transform the social foundations of political power” (Kimmel 1990). To figure out if this definition is suitable for the process in East Germany 1989, the paper will be analyzing the major element: (forcible) change, mass participation (Kimmel 1990).

4.1 Change

Firstly, to analyze the long-term changes, the goals of protesters in Leipzig, Dresden and other smaller cities in East Germany need to be mentioned. Slogans as “SED-no thanks!“, „Stasi get out“, “We are the people” or "Democracy now or never” (cited in Opp, Voss, Gern, 1995) were shouted by the mass in the streets. The people primarily fought for the removal of General Secretary Honecker and his team, the disempowerment of the Stasi (State Security Service) and that the SED faced free elections. The current system of the GDR was no longer tolerated and the people were searching for freedom of speech, travel, and assurance of fair trial. Freedom as a leading aim of the protest confirms Arendt's approach (1965, cited in Kimmel, 1990). The statistic shows that the majority of the participants demonstrated for more democracy (Opp, Voss, Gern, 1995). The demand for democratization is a sign that the mass aimed for a change in society. But the original goal was to reform the GDR. Revolution and the reunification were not one of the main goals at the beginning (Süß, 2004). Nevertheless, the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9 was the result of pressure from the street (Spiegel Online, 2009). The event has a strongly broader political and symbolic impact on people's perceptions, which brought them to formulate further-reaching political goals (Neckermann, 1991). After November 9th, there were not only a wave of demonstrations across the GDR but also a strong shift in protest goals. Instead of the chant "we are the people", the new refrain was "we are one people!" (Opp, Voss, Gern, 1995). In Leipzig, on December 11th, on two banners appeared: "Long live the Saxon revolution!" and "We now need a psychological revolution - it has to start in the head!" (bpb). The probability of unification becomes increasingly present to many citizens of the GDR. In the same week, Honecker was discharged, the ruling power block disintegrated, and the SED resigned en bloc in December 1989. Kohl, chancellor of West- Germany, used the favorable international environment and the revolutionary elan for the realization of an early unification (Neckermann, 1991). The reform process transformed into a fundamental revolution.

4.2 Forcible (violent) change

The element of forcible and violent change could not be applied in the case of Peaceful Revolution in East Germany. Furthermore, we have to discuss which role (non-)violence played in the Revolution. There were protests throughout the country, but three demonstrations on three successive days, on October 7th in Plauen, October 8th in Dresden, and October 9th in Leipzig, played a key role in shaping the Peaceful Revolution in the GDR (Spiegel Online, 2009). The Monday demonstrations on October 9th at the Nikolai Church in Leipzig marked the non-violent character of the Revolution. On that day, it was decided whether the SED­government choose the way of violence and repression or not. A few days ago, on October 7th, 1989, a demonstration with 1.500 people in Berlin was crushed by security forces. On the sidelines of the celebrations for the 40th anniversary of the GDR people got injured, water cannons were used and around 500 participants were arrested that night (New York Times, 1989). Similar events happened in September 1989 and in 1953, where demonstrators were repressed violently by the SED-regime. The escalation in October 1989 was visible and predictable. In factories, hospitals and in the media, the assumption of a “Chinese solution” was being sought - in reference to the bloody repression on student protests in Beijing/China in June 1989. The aspect of peacefulness became even more important when 70,000 protesters fronted 8,000 strongly armed security forces. But at the decisive moment, the police stood aside and let the protesters march by (Spiegel Online, 2009). The Soviet Union announced that it would not intervene violently even if there were uprisings, except when the uprisings were supported by foreign armed forces (Süß, 2004). The crowds gave the police no excuses for intervention by carrying candles, as a symbol of peace, and banners. The Stasi planted plainclothes officers in the crowd to cause trouble, but they were all quickly surrounded and neutralized by other protesters (Spiegel Online, 2009). Both sides avoided a conflict encouraged through the public appeal „NO violence!”. It was made clear that the democratic movement could only go its way peacefully and non-violently (Lindner, 2010 cited in bpb). In Leipzig, the masses had the power to topple the regime peacefully and marked the actual end of the GDR (Tagespiegel International, 2009). During the whole revolutionary process, not a single shot was fired (Kullick, Documentary movie).

4.3 Mass mobilization

One of the ongoing debates is whether the change was applied from “above” or from the people. Depending on that fact, the process could be defined as Revolution or not.

The "revolution from above" by Soviet-party-leader Gorbachev (1988 cited in bpb) and the introduction to his concepts perestroika and glasnost won in popularity among the political elite in the second half of the 1980s. “The revolution from above” will prevent a “revolution from below” (Yanov, 1988 cited in Süß, 2004). The significance of Gorbachev is usually overestimated in history. Although his reform policy strengthened oppositional forces throughout East-Central Europe, his aim was to save the communist dictatorship, at least in his own country (Süß, 2004). Through a change in leadership and a willingness to negotiate, the SED attempted to win back the political initiative in East Germany. The new SED secretary­general, Egon Krenz, introduced reforms and the concept of the Wende (turning point). By that, he put himself at the forefront of dialogue and reforms (bpb). It has been described as an attempt to save the “sinking ship” before the GDR should perish. The people no longer wanted reform. The fall of the wall and the unification settled the successful implication of the people's will. It was self-liberation „without the dollar or the DAX, without the US or Soviet armies. It was the people who did it“ (Führer cited in Spiegel Online, 2009). It was one of the very rare revolutions “from below“ in the world history (Tullock 1987 cited in Opp, Voss, Gern, 1995). This statement is confirmed in all the interviews (see appendix).

The role of the people was from significant importance for the Revolution. The paper focuses on the behavioural-structural approach, which does not mean that the protest was completely individualized. The citizens movements founded in the late phase of the GDR are considered to be the initiators and essential bearers of the first stages of the social upheaval of 1989/90 (bpb). The opposition groups, like the Neues Forum ("New Forum"), Demokratie Jetzt (“Democracy Now") and Initiative Frieden und Menschenrechte (“Peace and Human Rights”), specified the place, time and content. Many of these groups could often only work within the Evangelical Church (Süß, 2004), which provided room for discussion to hundreds of people. The churches as a gathering and starting point (Pollack,1997 cited in bpb) play a crucial role in mass mobilization. After attending church, the protest was then carried onto the street. It became a regular weekly event across the country within an increasing number of participants. Protest actions before 1988, for instance the protest in 1953, consist only of actions by single individuals or small groups (Rein 1989 cited in Opp, Voss, Gern, 1995).

On September 25th, 1989 the first large Monday demonstration in Leipzig with 5,000 people took place. The highlight was the day when 70,000 people participated in Leipzig. This was the largest protest East Germany had ever seen till then (Spiegel Online, 2009). The demonstrations in Leipzig doubled in size every week, attracting protesters from all over East Germany. By October 23rd, 300.000 people filled Leipzig's city center and at the Berlin demonstration, the highest number of 750.000 people was reached (Der Tagespiegel, 2014). There was a strong influence of the Western media on the concept formation during the Peaceful Revolution. With dramatic images of the refugee movement across the German embassies, Hungarian borders and reports of demonstrations, the dimensions could no longer be ignored (Süß, 2004). The people understood that disciplined and peaceful demonstration in front of TV cameras were their strongest weapon (Neckermann, 1991). Mass demonstrations became a preferred and effective means of political protest. People from various social classes (Süß, 2004) in the streets “disempower a regime that was armed to the teeth" (Bleiker, 1993).

The previous analysis clarifies that the nonviolent peaceful character of the Revolution in 1989 challenge the traditional understanding of Revolution. The argument why the protests were not a Revolution for representatives in the GDR, is thus obvious. The Peaceful Revolution is identified by its unique non-violent revolutionary character. The concept of the Peaceful Revolution was formulated for the first time by the governing mayor of West Berlin, Walter Momper (bpb). He congratulated the citizens of the GDR: “this is the first democratic revolution in Germany, the first revolution to be carried out with completely peaceful means” (Momper, 1989 cited in bpb). But banners and slogans at the protest mentioned the term “Revolution” only six times whereas the term “reforms“ were discussed over 40 times (bpb). However, the effectiveness of the term Revolution in 1989/90 can only be shown to a limited extent it is crucial to understand the process in October 1989 as a revolutionary one as it fulfills the conditions of change and mass mobilization.

The non-violent Revolutions are a new form of social movement. It becomes more and more an alternative to people across the world to change the system without destroying, being harmed, or even dying. For instance, the People Power Revolution in the Phillipines (1986) or the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia (1989). The Peaceful Revolution included new elements: a non-leading figure of Revolution, mass mobilization through media and non­violence. The paper suggests that the meaning, form, and character of the construction Revolution can be shifts dynamically. A new more fluid understanding of Revolutions in the 20th and 21st century is essential. On orientation provides the definition by Kimmel mentioned earlier in the paper.

5. Reasons for the non-violent character of the Peaceful Revolution

To answer the question: Why did the protest in autumn 1989 in East Germany remain peaceful? the paper is applying a structural-behavioural approach within the Rational Action Theory.

[...]