Рейтинг
Порталус

The East Changer the West

Дата публикации: 22 апреля 2014
Автор(ы): Winnfrid Boettscher, Doctor of Philosophy, doctor honoris causa (Moscow), professor of political sciences in the Technical University of Rhein - Westfalia →
Публикатор: Научная библиотека Порталус
Рубрика: МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ ПРАВО →
Источник: (c) "БЕЛАРУСЬ В МИРЕ" No.001 01-01-97 →
Номер публикации: №1398149849

Winnfrid Boettscher, Doctor of Philosophy, doctor honoris causa (Moscow), professor of political sciences in the Technical University of Rhein - Westfalia, (c)


Preliminary Notes

 

To a great extent it was the drastic changes in all spheres of public life in the former Soviet Union (fSU) which caused the people to lose their sense of direction. Values worshipped for more than 70 years disappeared overnight, or are, at least, questioned. Standards of living keep deteriorating, with some getting richer and richer while many get poorer. As in all societies, and especially in societies in transition, this leads to the loss of sense of security for an individual and leads to the overall instability of relations. Radical economic reforms, transformation of the former types of ownership and price liberalisation have taken little account of the social and psychological impact on the individual.

Reforms can only be successful if actively supported by the majority of the population. Only in this way can the political "opportunists" be kept from power. Also reforms will be only be supported if the future is clearly defined.

The reform-related deterioration of living standards puts the whole process of change into jeopardy.

The concept of "sanation" developed, in particular, by the International Monetary Fund can hardly be applicable to the dissolution of such a giant state as the fSU. We must be aware that that we are witnessing an historical process which only takes place every few centuries. The collapse of the fSU can be compared to the fall of the Empire of Egypt, the Empire of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the Empire of Carl the Great, Carl V, the Napoleon state, Habsburg monarchy and other similar changes. Then, as now, these events shook the world. Which is why the world should be concerned regarding current events. It is necessary to consider the scale of the problems in order not to underestimate their consequen-cies, and thus be more cautious about the pace and the radicality of reforms. All such reforms can only be successful if made for the people and not against them.

 

The Key Thesis

 

The disintegration of the Soviet Union changed not on-ly the East, but also, to the same degree, the West.

Clearly, the process of change in the East differs from that of the West. While the East experiences the negative sides of transformation, the West tends to see itself as the winner in the "war of systems". The transformation process in the fSU and the transition from the command economy to a market economy confront the East with problems of an economic, environmental, legal and social cha-racter which are almost impossible to resolve.

Western aid to the transformation process, when it did take place, proceeded from several considerations; though, at first, no one in the West was aware of the scale and the dramatic character of the fall of the whole system. We Germans, despite the provision of massive aid, were wrong in thinking that the former GDR could be "pulled up" to the economic and political level of West Germany:

1. The provision of western aid became more of the subject for competition between western countries, ra-ther than the object of mutual consent and coordination to reach the goals of transformation. Aid was not given so that the countries could better help themselves - it was provided constantly, sometimes with the deliberate intention of obtaining some financial return. We tend to forget that the cost of containing communism and of the competition between the rival systems was many times grea-ter than those sums we are now ready to invest into the transformation and maturation of new democracies. And all of this expenditure will greatly strengthen our own democracy.

2. Western aid for the countries in transition was not properly adapted. In other words, the West simply tried to transfer a direct copy of its own form of social life to the Eastern countries.

Existing traditions of public and private life, the understanding of life and rules of conduct in the community were not taken into account, neither was their influence on the process of change. Instead, an army of western consultants and advisers brought with them models for the creation of western-type democracies and rigid economic theories of neo-liberalism and monetarism in order to demonstrate "the correct capitalist way".

The aftermath, alongside a collapse of the past system of values, was: pauperisation, social degradation, psychological depression, a feeling of inferiority and loss of hope. A mass of workers became the losers from this process of reform.

3. Above all, the West failed to appreciate its own situation. Believing in the supremacy of its own system, it was unable to see the need to initiate its own transformation process. The crisis of the western system, which we have been witnessing since at least 1990, will go on until we also admit the need to undergo the transformation ne-cessary for adaptation to the new world system.

Ideas formulated in the 19th century, are no longer applicable for the 21st. We are facing a deep social and political crisis. It is not only in the sphere of economy where we hardly know what to do next. Supply policy as such turned out to be a failure, and it is unlikely that demand policy constitutes a sensible alternative. Many important politicians in the West still believe that problems can be resolved through the expansion of production.

Multi-party democracy hardly offers any prospects for the future. More and more young people are turning away from it with fear. Trade unions, which for a long time used to be the basis of our social system, are watching hopelessly the growth in unemployment. The collapse of the system of values goes hand in hand with the economic crisis. We have no answer to the question of how we are going to live tomorrow.

4. Therefore, once the West admits to its own crisis, it is no longer logical to recommend that the East becomes the same as the West. The truth is that the old system (in the East) is no longer capable of solving the problems of society and that simply copying the western system is no solution. One must find a way which avoids the mistakes of both East and West. The endogenous potential of countries of the former Soviet Union (fSU) must be set free and used for the benefit of transformation. Most important, is that the process of transition should be expressed in the social sense, i.e. all steps taken must be adjusted to take account of the existing structures, rather than simply destroying the old without knowing what the outcome will be. One must not underestimate the strong spirit of collectivism in these countries. Though it is crystal clear that the restoration of old relationships is neither possible nor desirable; one must not refuse to use of the products of one's own labour, and this is absolutely in line with the idea of socialism, in the best sense of the word.

 

Prospects for the Future

 

The peoples of both Eastern and Western Europe are tired of centralism. The tendencies towards regionality and autonomy are becoming more and more pronounced. For Western, Central and Eastern Europe and Russia, with its successor-states, the only long-term chance for survival is if power is decentralised, so that the people become directly involved in those decision-making areas which affect them. Political thinking must become focused on the needs of the people in terms of provision of education, food, culture, free time and social security.

A common opinion in the West is that Russian and associated peoples must be ruled "with an iron hand"; that the Russians are unable to build an efficient system of self-administration and, as it has been over the centuries, they are only receptive to orders emanating from Moscow (Belarusians - from Minsk, Ukrainians - from Kiev, etc.). This is a false and obsolete way of thinking. There is no nation that is incapable of taking its fate into its own hands. However, this cannot be achieved by orders from above. Such a democracy is always vulnerable to crises. The stronger the democracy is at the lowest level of regions and communities - the more stable the political system in general. As more people start making decisions about their own needs, thus initiating the democra-tic process "from below", - the more they will identify themselves with the system. Without underestimating the difficulties that the Eastern countries face during the transition to democracy, the integrity of the Russian state can be preserved, provided independence in political relations is ceded to the regions and communities. The principle of subordination with mutual concessions must become the starting point of the policy. The same is true in Belarus and the Ukraine.

This all presupposes - as it does with the West - that institutional reform and approaches to reform, which puts the development of sectorial and regional structures into the centre of political thinking, takes into account the environment, resource availability and consumption criteria.

As far back as 1898 historian Jacob Burkhard from Basel wrote: "the only thing that has always been lethal to Europe is the suffocating monopoly of the single state, irrespective of whether it comes from outside or from within. Every levelling trend of a political, religious or social kind is hazardous for our continent. What threatens us is forced unity, homogenisation. What will save us is our diversity."

This 19th century idea, expressed in relation to Europe, is important when applied to Russia. Russia and other fSU countries are threatened by forced unity. The existence of Russia is also based on its diversity. Any tendency towards uniformity and centralisation jeopardises the existence of any country. Integrity and diversity - both constitute a typical relevance for any of today's cultures.

There is no controversy over the process of unification going in parallel with the strengthening of the regions; one does not contradict the other, both being, to a great extent, complementary.

The less central control there is at the neighbourhood, communal and regional level, the more supportive the people will be to the policy of their state. This necessitates the strengthening of community and regional auto-nomy. With such a model the role of regions must not be limited to that of administration. On the contrary, political initiative should come first and foremost from the regions. Where people are provided with ready-made decisions from the centre, decisions are merely approved but not necessarily enforced. In other words, the more policy is generated at the regional level, the more successful the policy of the centre (Bodo Gombach). But it is not only the creation of political involvement that takes place in the regions. Look at the examples of Pittsburgh, Limburg in the Netherlands and the Ruhr in Germany. A backward region, be it an old industrial or permanently weak one, in the structural sense, can only recover through mobilisation of its own endogenous potential thus ensuring the involvement of its people.

Institutionalisation of regional decisions cannot remain at the existing primitive level. The financial power of the regions must be expanded in such a way that initiative and political solidarity enhance each region's creative (primarily relative to the processing of information) potential. One must refrain from making decisions which are levelling, inefficient, general, and not targeted on regional needs; but rather make decisions which are transparent, aware of local conditions, flexible, feasible and which encourage structures contributing to the development of creative potential. The advantages arising from this approach are absolutely clear: central or state power which is perceived as alien is restricted, whereas democratic choice, and therefore the will to cooperate constructively, is reinforced. As a result, the potential for resolving problems is enhanced and with that comes a strengthening of political stability.

If both East and West move from central authority, or, as central authorities always stated, - move on to regional democracy - then a new innovative order is possible. Let us break away from the rigid stereotypes of the past so that we may surpass ourselves.

Опубликовано на Порталусе 22 апреля 2014 года

Новинки на Порталусе:

Сегодня в трендах top-5


Ваше мнение?



Искали что-то другое? Поиск по Порталусу:


О Порталусе Рейтинг Каталог Авторам Реклама