Español“Reflections on Unfinished Revolutions,” a report by the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe examines the state of democracy in Eastern Europe 25 years after the 1989-91 freedom and independence movements.
The report is notable because it offers an assessment from 22 veterans of the struggle, who continue to play significant roles in their countries’ political lives. They are among the courageous men and women who spent much of their formative years under communist rule and yet dared to “think of new realities.”
- Read More: Stars Cavort in Havana While Political Arrests Continue to Rise
- Read More: First American Cruise Ship in 50 Years Arrives in Havana
Their disheartening assessment is that, in many of the former Soviet bloc countries, the larger promises and hopes of the 1989-91 freedom movement remain unfulfilled under the long shadow of the communist legacy.
In some of these countries, the Soviet communist system was replaced with authoritarian dictatorships enforced by former KGB officials and members of the Communist Party.
For most of these countries, the legacy of the communist period has bequeathed a long list of serious problems and challenges: endemic poverty, high unemployment, social disparities, endemic corruption, lack of transparency, weak political parties, a weak or nonexistent independent media, and less citizen participation in politics, among other issues.
In assessing the unfinished business of the 1989-91 freedom movements the report addresses questions such as:
Why did freedom succeed in some countries, and yet others failed to achieve even a basic democratic model of governance? Even in the countries where elections became free and fair, why has the role of non-democratic parties been so strong? Why is civic life and citizens’ participation in the new democracies so weak? What happened to the dream of an independent media? What were the missed opportunities for advancing freedom?
As I read this report, I could not help but think that decades from now, a very similar one may be written about Cuba.
The authors of the study place much of the responsibility for their countries’ failed opportunities to achieve democratic governance on their own citizens — a citizenry who was unprepared to meet the challenges of overcoming the communist legacy and “did not act with sufficient decisiveness in getting rid of the old system.”
The report also noted that Western countries have a limited vision for expanding freedom and often fail to back democratic movements. Instead, Western governments underinvest in supporting the values of freedom and side with governments of an anti-democratic character.
One result has been that many political parties in post-communist countries view the state, not the people, as “their base or their constituency.”
These parties become the instruments of authoritarian leaders. When societies fail to deal with their communist past, they inhibit the development of genuine democratic institutions.
[The] citizenry was unprepared to meet the challenges of overcoming the communist legacy…
The report also assessed Western politics and identified policy problems. It argued that business-oriented Western leaders often have an affinity for regimes that adopt economic reforms without democratic ones. The authors argue that such regimes are contradictory and that democracy, not economics, should be the priority.
The valiant freedom fighters that authored this report are not homogeneous in their political orientations. Yet they made it clear that when the Western liberal democratic establishment signals that its values are relative, that message undermines those fighting for democracy in their countries.
They urged us not to look away from our values out of political concern or economic gain, and to stop treating dictators as if they can be “educated or turned.” The Kim Jong-uns, Putins, or Castros will not be turned.
At a minimum, Western governments should not incite democratic activists to work within the systems of dictatorships or faux post-communist organizations.
The objective should be to promote real movement toward democracy, with long-term support for the development of democratic institutions.
It appears that Western governments — and in particular the United States — are unwilling to listen to the voices of the opposition living under oppression in Cuba or to the democracy-loving diaspora that champions freedom. They should understand the experiences of Eastern European and heed their leaders.
It was the courage, values and political imagination of 1989-91 freedom movements that brought about one of the most fundamental political transformations of the twentieth century.
The lessons for Cuba’s future are multi-fold.