Civil Society in Reforming Communist Regimes: The Logic of Emergence

Abstract

Analyses of the development of a in Soviet-type regimes began during the 1980-1981 Solidarity period in Poland, as scholars attempted to explain patterns of autonomous social participation in the face of a state-directed society.' Since 1985, as tens of thousands of unofficial groups and political parties emerged in the USSR in response to Gorbachev's reforms of glasnost' and perestroika, the same concept of civil society has been applied there to characterize independent social activism.2 Despite the ubiquitous use of the concept in both Central Europe and the USSR, there has been little attempt to compare the development of civil societies in Soviet-type regimes, largely because the USSR presents a unique case, given its particular historical experience and the indigenous development of Marxism-Leninism.3 Despite the obvious national differences, however, such a comparison can prove fruitful as western political science strives to place the pieces of the posttotalitarian puzzle together from information on group activity and collective action by encouraging more systematic analyses of the causes and forms of increased social participation in reforming Communist states.4 While the swift and complex social developments in Central Europe and the USSR defy strict categorization, we base our analysis on discernible trends in civil society development as it has emerged in Central Europe and compare them with those of the (now former) Soviet case. The experience of Central Europe suggests that there are four stages in the ongoing development of civil society: defensive, in which private individuals and independent groups actively or passively defend their autonomy vis-a-vis the party-state; in which independent social groups or movements seek limited goals in a widened public sphere which is sanctioned or conceded by the reforming party-state; mobilizational, in which independent groups or movements undermine the legitimacy of the party-state by offering alternative forms of governance to a politicized society; and institutional, in which publicly supported leaders enact laws guaranteeing autonomy of social action, leading to a contractual relationship between state and society regulated eventually by free elections. It is our contention that during the first two stages, defensive and emergent, civil society in Central Europe and the USSR can be compared on the basis of regime type. That is, the Communist regimes of posttotalitarian social systems shaped the character of civil society development. In Soviet-style regimes, systemic crises in the context of posttotalitarianism engendered the particular form of civil society development during its first two stages, as social actors attempted to protect their autonomy from party and state penetration and, when afforded the opportunity, to express their interests or press their claims in an expanded public sphere. Expanding independent activism increasingly contradicted the legitimacy and power base of the single ruling party, leading to the end of