The Weakness of Postcommunist Civil Society

Abstract

Civil society continues to thrive as an object of study in postcommunist Europe, as in most other regions of the world. Much of the literature on postcommunist civil society, however, stresses its relative weakness, whether compared to other regions or to the high expectations of 1989–91. This emphasis on weakness is especially notable given that, only a decade ago, so many observers expected postcommunist civil society to be unusually strong and vibrant. Indeed, although specialists on Latin America and Southern Europe were also beginning to take the concept seriously in the 1980s, most scholars agree that the rapid revival of civil society as a major object of study resulted largely from developments surrounding the collapse of communism. The weakness of postcommunist civil society leads to a host of important questions. Yet is it actually correct to assert that postcommunist civil society is particularly weak? It seems clear that, when compared to the idealistic hopes of 1989–91, the current political, economic, and social realities have fallen short. When compared to other regions, however, the conclusion that postcommunist civil society is distinctively weak needs further substantiation. Such evidence is provided by the World Values Survey, which shows that in a wider crossregional perspective—compared against both older democracies and postauthoritarian countries—postcommunist countries do have relatively lower levels of organizational membership. This finding suggests that, even though there is some variation among the countries of postcommunist Europe, on the whole they still appear to form a coherent group. These empirical findings may affect the prospects for democracy and Marc Morje Howard is assistant professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, College Park. This article draws on his forthcoming book, The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe (Cambridge University Press, 2002).