The author of the paper wonders to what extent the events of 1989 corresponded to generally accepted ideas about the revolution? He considers that in the characteristics of the considered events, the word «revolution» was not chosen very well. His arguments boil down to the following theses. Firstly, on the eve of these events in the countries of Eastern Europe did not observe what is usually characterized as a revolutionary situation. As Slovak historian L’ubomir Liptak noted, in the mid eighties the dynamic of economy was still sufficient to maintain a satisfactory standard of living including such important standards as secure employment, free health care and education, cheap housing and subsidized basic foods, therefore though communist regimes were not capable of more dynamic development, but it was not unbearable enough to stimulate any radical disturbances. Disagreement with the regimes took the form of distancing or non-identification, but not of readiness for genuine revolutionary actions. Secondly, none of the Communist government in Eastern Europe was, in fact, overthrown. They all peacefully gave up his powers. Moreover, the Communist parties reacted loyally to the changing political situation, participated in the first multi-party elections after 1989 and even won them in some countries, though for a while. Thirdly, except for Poland, any internal opposition was not established, i. e. such one that posed a serious threat to the Communist regime or had a clear program of revolutionary changes, openly declaring their commitment to a radical dismantling of the existing system. Fourthly, the former representatives of the party-state nomenclature cleverly adapted themselves to the reform processes and were able to hold in their hands not only the power (which they had earlier), but also to amass property, as in the socialist period they could not dream of it. However, such a fairly common practice does not correspond to the contents of classic revolution, because the latter just deprives of the pre-revolutionary ruling elite and the ruling classes the power and the ownership. Fifthly, the revolutions did not lead to the re-establishment of the system, having existed before the previous revolution. In the case of 1989 events, just such a phenomenon is traced: the so-called people’s democratic revolutions in the late 1940’s, having shattered the political and socio-economic order (capitalism), but the Velvet Revolutions restored the essence of these former order though in compliance with the realities of the modern world. And the last one. It is generally accepted, that any revolutionary upheavals are due, primarily, to internal causes. But, in the case of the 1989 events, the majority of experts tended to think about the crucial role of the external factor, namely the position of the Soviet leadership, headed by Mikhail Gorbachev. Some of them even considered it, perhaps, the main reason of the Velvet revolutions. The peaceful change of communist regimes was enabled above all by the fact that the Soviet Union – the main guarantor of their government – was not willing to help them effectively. On the other hand, the reforms that began in Eastern Europe after rapid and dramatic events of 1989 were undoubtedly of revolutionary character: the dismantlement of socialist system, an introduction of democratic procedures in politics, the pluralism in the ideological and cultural sphere, the transition to market economy with the full restoration of private property and the like ones.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Sep 30, 2024
Talbot Imlay 
Open Access