CONCEPTIONS OF MODERNIZATION IN THE POST-COMMUNIST DISCOURSE
More details
Hide details
1
профессор,
заведующий кафедрой теории и философии политики факультета политологии СПбГУ
Publication date: 2019-12-22
Studia Politologiczne 2016;40
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The article demonstrates how different conceptualizations of modernization can lead to
very different explanations and conclusions about both the dynamics of democratization
and political change in post-communist world. The postwar experience of the communist
East has constituted an attempt to overcome un derdevelopment and establish economic
and political progress. The specific characteristics of the post-communist transition consist
in the fact that we are witnessing not only a political transformation from a totalitarian
regime to a pluralistic democracy, but at the same time an economic transformation from
a planned command economy to a free market economy in Central and Eastern Europe and a transformation towards a civil society with free associations. In 1995 A. Przeworski noted
that the fall of communism in Eastern Europe has been widely interpreted as a triumph of
democracy and of capitalism. The new post-communist countries have chosen a strategy
of adopting political, economic, and cultural organization already existing elsewhere –
democracy, markets, and an individualistic, consumption-oriented culture that dominates
the advanced capitalist world. The school of transitology, which was very influential at the
time, may have had low expectations concerning the spread of democracy at heart but it
also stressed that in the heat of the transition from authoritarianism it was only the political
actors’ choices that were of vital importance. Staunchly opposed to this view, the opponents
of the transitology approaches argued that the history of the post-communist countries,
and the communist legacy, in particular, more or less ruled out a steady movement toward
liberal democracy. They claimed, in particular, that a fundamental gap separated at least
half of the former communist countries from the West and, by extension, from democracy.
In this strategy, modernization becomes synonymous with internationalization: integration
into the world economy, combined with an imitation of economic, political, and cul tural
patterns prevalent in the advanced capitalist countries. However few politicians fully
realized that both democratic institutions and capitalist economies differ in significant ways
even among the developed democratic countries. Moreover, those who seek to imitate
these countries often forget that there are many cases in which capitalism has failed in
generating either prosperity or democracy.
PEER REVIEW INFORMATION
Article has been screened for originality
REFERENCES (7)
1.
Democracy and Myth in Russia and Eastern Europe, edited by Alexander Wöll and Harald Wydra. London and New York 2008.
2.
S. Eisenstadt, Frameworks of the Great Revolutions: Culture, Social Structure, History and Human Agency, “International Social Science Journal” 1992, № 133.
3.
Chr. W. Haerpfer, Democracy and Enlargement in Post-Communist Europe. The Democratization of the General Public in Fifteen Central and Eastern European Countries, 1991–1998, London–New York 2002.
4.
J.J. Hesse (ed.), Administrative Transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. Towards Public Sector Reform in Post-Communist Societies, Oxfor –Cambridge 1993.
5.
A. Przeworski, Capitalism and Social Democracy, Cambridge; Paris 1985.
6.
A. Przeworski, Sustainable Democracy, Cambridge 1995.
7.
E. Tiryakian, The Changing Centers of Modernity, “Comparative Social Dynamics”, Boulder (CO) 1986.