ABSTRACT
Post-Soviet, and, because of its particularly pre-eminent role in the Soviet Union, Russia’s, post-communist transition contrasts significantly with the process of change in Central and Eastern Europe (see previous chapter) in several ways. First, there is the legacy of the communist experience per se. While in Russia, the implementation of the communist regime was essentially a domestic affair, in the CEE states it was imposed after the war by a victorious occupation force, resulting in many negative associations with the very notion of ‘communism’. Second, there was the experience of an economic system designed for a feudal, pre-industrial economy, that was simply extended to, and imposed on, the more advanced economies of the CEE states. In addition to this structural mismatch, there was the disconnection of these economies from their established connections to the rest of Europe’s space economy and polity, and forced re-orientation towards Russia’s and the rest of the Soviet Union’s economic requirements. Third, the nature of the end of communism differed significantly between the Soviet and the CEE countries – essentially ‘bottom-up’ with popular engagement and grassroots involvement, versus an elitist, top-down instigated reform course ‘gone wrong’, with little popular involvement, in the Soviet Union. The fourth point of difference is the varying outcomes of the collapse of the communist regimes in CEE and the FSU – active democratisation with the involvement of an emerging civil society, against an essentially merely formal democracy disguising an ever more autocratic regime. Lastly, there is the role of territoriality and nationhood, which generally were of lesser importance in the CEE countries, as national territories clearly existed and were unchallenged. The former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were the only exceptions. This contrasted with the territorial struggles between newly independent nations in the aftermath of the break-up of the multi-ethnic Soviet Union. Territoriality these had been largely defined by political considerations and ‘divide and rule’ policies under Stalin. While within the Soviet Union, boundaries between technocratically defined territories were of limited relevance for people’s
movements, they mattered more as policy areas, including limited autonomy for particular ethnic groupings. Raised to the status of international border, these divisions had suddenly gained in importance and separating effect, and their location become more of a concern
Despite these evident differences, all countries shared the abrupt confrontation with the necessity and opportunity to develop new structures, and principles of governance and economic development, without any preparation and ‘warning’. There simply was no time for learning best practices. Instead, ‘learning on the job’ was needed. This was the case in China, too (Chapter 6), but there a clearer understanding about the outcome and direction of reforms avoided the rather protracted nature of post-Soviet development.
