The Velvet Revolutions

[Garbarsardar]

I really wonder what is happening to the ex-Iron curtain countries after the more or Less (usually less) traumatic transition to Democracy.

I can look it up, I just wonder if someone has firts hand information. I found this very intersting website about the initially branded "velvet" revolution:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB141/index.htm

[HorseArcher]

I hate to tell you this, but from my point of view, unfortunately many small countries having so called "democracy" is only illusion. The same people (or son of) are enjoying - what we call - "white shirt thieves" who were enjoying the benefits they received during the communist oppression. The only difference is that they don't call themselves "communist comrades" they settled their name -with a smile- as "democratic leaders", but a quick background check can prove that these SOBs are the same damn thieves and son of thieves who were on power during the iron curtain.
I really start to beleive that many of these remaining communist "splinters" can only be removed if blood is involved in one way or another.

I beleive I have spoken in the name of many of the small iron-curtain nations.

For example:
this guy has been simply stepped on, smeared - ony not murdered yet, by hungarian communists, and yet he still fights for the right:

Victor Orban
http://www.orbanviktor.hu/
(no english version yet, but i got a link from the wiki below)

Mr. Orbán was a founding member of the Fidesz (fides: loyalty, Latin), Federation of Young Democrats, which was formed on 30 March 1988. On 16 June 1989, Mr. Orbán gave a speech at Heroes' Square, Budapest, on the occasion of the reburial of Imre Nagy and other national martyrs of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. In his speech he demanded free elections and the withdrawal of Soviet troops. The speech brought him wide national and political acclaim. This speech is widely remembered as a turning point in Hungarian history. In the summer of 1989 he took part in the Opposition Roundtable negotiations.

In 1990 he became a member of the Hungarian parliament and leader of Fidesz, which was transformed from a liberal party (Fidesz was a member of Liberal International) into a right-wing party under his direction, after the collapse of the national right in 1994. In 1995 the party changed its name to Fidesz-MPP (Federation of Young Democrats & Hungarian Civic Party).


look at his record and what just happened a few days ago:

He was awarded the Freedom Award of the American Enterprise Institute and the New Atlantic Initiative (2001), the Polak Award (2001), the Grand Cross of the National Order of Merit (2001), the "Förderpreis Soziale Marktwirtschaft" (Price for the Social Market Economy, 2002) and the Mérite Européen prize (2004). In April, 2004. he was awarded the Papal Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great.

He was the candidate of Fidesz for the parlamentary election in 2006. Fidesz has failed to gain majority on this election, which puts Orbán's future political career as the leader of Fidesz in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n

not just puts his career in question, but basically put the entire country's fate in question (Hungary),

since this SOB communist roach has took power over again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Gyurcsany

* Mr. Gyurcsány has a pronounced flippant speech-style, which – as opponents think – alienates common people.
* The origin of his wealth is regularly questioned by the political right. However they could never prove anything.
* A person named "Gyurcsányi" has been mentioned by Attila Kulcsár, the main defendant in the high-profiled "K&H Equities" money laundering scandal in Hungary.[3] The prime minister denies he had any connections with this case.
* On February 2, 2005 at the birthday party of the Hungarian Socialist Party, for the sake of a joke, he referred to the players of the Saudi national football team as terrorists. Later he apologized, but the kingdom ordered its ambassador home from Hungary for a time.[4]
* On December 9, 2005 he lost a libel action against a newspaper (Magyar Nemzet). Note, however, that on April 27, 2005 Magyar Nemzet journalist László Török was given a year of probation for slandering then-Sports Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány and his company in 2003, following a decision by the Pest Central District Court.[5]

You wonder how in the word of hell can this guy be elected with such a record (Gyurcsany),


well, guess how?
False statements, Cheating, propaganda efforts, etc. Quite the same way how communist parties elected.

[MoROmeTe]

Here follows The (Political) History of Romania after the 1989 Revolution 101

Our Revolution (some call it a coup d'etat) was the only bloody one in the whole of the Est of Europe. While Poland, Hungary, Czeckoslovakia and even Bulgaria (sometimes called the 17th Republic of the USSR) managed to get negociated transition in the form of round-tables, Romania needed shots to be fired. After a few incidents in Timisoara, involving popular support for Laslo Tokes, an ethnic Hungarian priest, a popular meeting was called in Bucharest by Nicolae Ceausescu, the National Communist dictator of the country. On the 21st of December he was supposed to calm the population down, offer it a few raises and threaten with the martial state. I all went downhill for him. The crowd growled and then assaulted the building he was in. He fled by helicopter. In the following hours a few second exhelon leaders of the Communist Party, most proeminently being Ion Iliescu, who went on to be Presient of Democratic Romania 3 times after he was a party Secretary for about 30 years. They seized power and launched the idea that the ideals of Communism were tainted by the Ceausescu family. The Causescu's were caught and executed on the 25th of December. A Front of National Unity was instituted, filled mainly with ex-Communists. When the reconstituted historical parties, like the Liberal Party or the Peasants Party went on to demonstrate against Communism and Communists a crack down began. Miners came to Bucharest to "restore order". Intellectuals and students were beaten. If you can please watch the documentary University Plaza by Stere Gulea, if you can (I know it was seen in France and Belgium a while back) which gives a good account of those moments. The West was appaled at the images coming out of Romania...

The first free elections held in May 1990 were won, by a landslide, by the succesor of the Communist Party, called FSN (National Salvation Front). Ion Iliescu became president with over 80% of the vote. 2/3 of the representatives elected belonged to the FSN. Opposition was limited to intelectuals and groups like the GDS (Social Dialogue Group) and around historical parties.

In 1992 new elections were held. Ion Iliescu again is president, with a lower margin. Ex-Communists (FSN and PMR) and nationalists (PRM and PUNR) with strong anti-Semitic and anti-Hungarian discourse created a parliamentary majority. At least there was not a full flegged opposition. The privatisation of state owned companies was done so that former Communist officials or ex-Securitate (political police) agents were the new owners. Living was hard, even if the government created extensive yet unsustainable social programs. Some even said the the Communist era provided more security of jobs and better living conditions. There were voices which were ready to accept less freedom for more food and security. Reforms was almost non-existant.

In 1996 democratic forces won the elections. A coalition of the Democratic Party (PD) (a splinter formation of FSN with more moderates and centrists), Peasants Party (PNTCD), Liberal Party (PNL) and an etnic Hungarian party (UDMR) governed. The coalition was full of infighting an almost as much corruption as the ex-Communist rule before. The miners once again threatened democracy, for the last time, but were stopped. But the pace of reforms was slow, because of resistance by old elements and because of the insatisfacion of the population. Eventually PNTCD was seen as quilty of the lack of reform and fight against corruption.

The 2000 elections brought the PSD (heir to the FSN) to power. Ion Iliescu again president. Adrian Nastase (now question for a huge corruption scandal) was PM. Reforms were quicker and better, there was also economic growth and a move towards European integration. But corruption still regined, privatization was done not for the benefit of the market or the state but for the benefit of obscure interests. The media was bought by the power, via publicity money and other grants.

In 2004 the democratic opposition again won. Traian Basescu is president. Alianta DA (made up of liberals PNL and democats PD) holds a majority toghether with UDMR and a media party (Ex-PUR, humanitarian party, now PC, a Conservative Party). Romania seems to be at last on a good road. We join the EU in 2007.

Problems still abound: 1) corruption at higher and lower levels; 2) media bias and media control of political and economical groups; 2) politicians acting to accomplish their own objectives and not to implement effective policy; 3) parties to closely connected to economical pressure groups and problems with the financing of political parties; 4) no highway kilometres build in the last 2 years; 5) populism - words and images seem more important than real policy; 6) lack of political education of the population; 7) lack of real political debates; 8) frivoulous scandals that obscure important issues (we talk about the sexual realtions of parlamentarians but do not talk about what the EU will mean for us); 9) an all around Communist mentality residing in the elites and in the population.

That's about it. You can also go to Wiki and play atound with the various links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...nia_since_1989.

It is a rather long post and a rather gloomy picture I am painting...

[HorseArcher]

Problems still abound:

1) corruption at higher and lower levels;
Agree. Completely, there is really no one to trust anymore, some people would rather refer to choose a rather uknown/neutral person as a representative of a political party, but those are simply oppressed or eliminated from the lists.

2) media bias and media control of political and economical groups;
Absolutely. Recently being discussed (and the media sued for this) in Hungary, the media (tv/radio) would not give fair time or correct information on existing parties, but rather put highlight on one or the other, which is completely unfair and uneceptable.

2) politicians acting to accomplish their own objectives and not to implement effective policy;
Even more. They put objectives on the tables that are either impossible to accomplish, or simply never even try to accomplish it after winning.
3) parties to closely connected to economical pressure groups and problems with the financing of political parties;
agree.
4) no highway kilometres build in the last 2 years;
Well, from my view, (again example of Hungary, but i know there are far worse situations throughout central/eastern europe) In hungary they did build new roads (but not enough), but unfortunately they were used as a political tool to gain advantage for elections and ignoring other crucial problems such as this flood that forces people to evacuate .
5) populism - words and images seem more important than real policy;
6) lack of political education of the population;
absolutely. Most of the old folks rather prefer communism, simply because they "lived better" during those years, then now. They ignore or don't know the fact that they were living of a "credit line" which has to be paid back, and the reason that the standard of living has dropped is because their sons, daughters are paying back their cheap bread's real price 20 years ago.
7) lack of real political debates;
Or, better phrased - lack of intelligent debates. All debates ends up in mud-swinging and accusations of each other, instead of getting into some intelligent debate.
8) frivoulous scandals that obscure important issues (we talk about the sexual realtions of parlamentarians but do not talk about what the EU will mean for us);
9) an all around Communist mentality residing in the elites and in the population.
Number 9 is number 1 cause of many many problems.

Excellent summary, moROmeTe!

[Garbarsardar]

From both your accounts, I noticed the same quotation I met daily when I was in Poland: "It was better with Communism". Of course the irony is breathtaking since the same people actually kept on ruling albeit under a new guise.

But what was in the minds of all those people the "better" thing?
Was their reaction a reflective one in the face of a "wild" capitalism?
Or was it the the new order (which was the old) was not bound by the party control and had no problem to engage in all kinds of activities overtly and not in secrecy as before?

[MoROmeTe]

Garb, my dear, in Romania it is a mixture of: 1) inability of the "common folk" to understand how Capitalism works and how can one profit from it, so an educational issue; 2) abuse of Capitalism by the ex-Communist elite (both of the Communist party and of the Securitate secret police), so a political issue; 3) lack of societal mechanism that develop over time so that community matters and somewhat limits the economics power, so a societal issue.

1) 45 years of Communusm means about a generation and a half. Nowadays everyone over 35 was to some extend educated under Communism so has a Communist frame of mind. And this is incredibly hard to get over. My father is a succesful project manager at OMV-Petrom, the largest oil company in South East Europe, trained by CODECS in England, and he is amazed at how much Communist residual mentalities resist/exist in his mind and in the people he works with, all good profesionals. It is like toxic residue. It takes a lot of time for it to become non-threatening. Capitalism is seen by "the common folk" as a bad thing, insecure, bringer of poverty, just like Communism pictured it. The paradox is that in the first phase, badly managed and abused (point 2) Capitalism was just that. Only just now, under better leadership and with better understanding, is Capitalism beginning to bring results.

2) Man, did they pillage. Anyone that had a connection to the regime and a little information used it to acquire wealth. No lustration. Only ex-oficials profiting from "wild Capitalism". No wonder simpler people thought Capitalism=bad, Communism=good.

3) Any Western society has had time to balance things. Those who have money understand what charity means and how sponsoring an NGo can be good. In Romania people with money buy the second Maybach and get a new under-aged lover. Knowledge and common self are lacking.

It is a bleak picture...