From feudal democracy in Armenia to transformations in Latvia — post-communist metamorphoses of the former Soviet States gathered at the international conference in Minsk.

International conference “Post-communist transformations: rethinking programs of democratic transit” took place on November 28 in Minsk. It gathered together experts on the matters of transformation processes from Germany, Latvia, Ukraine, Armenia, and Belarus.

What reason is lying in some countries’ resistance to the transformation processes in the XXI century? The researchers focused on reflecting the processes of democratic transformations and spreading the standards of the European model of democracy in the countries of the former communist block.

The crisis of the Eastern Partnership initiative and its inability to change the situation in the countries with hybrid political regimes such as Belarus, Azerbaijan, and Armenia; swift strengthening of authoritarian regime and Soviet revanchism in Russia; Ukrainian Maidan and the following crisis of the regional safety indicate general crisis of European transformations in the regions, the crisis of approaches to support for democratization and actualize the general problem of modern democracy and the system of support in spreading democracy.

What consequences did institutional reforms according to the European pattern have in the Baltic states and Eastern and Central Europe? Why didn’t the programs of democratization and development of the civil society result in formation of stable democratic regimes? What are the flaws and achievements in the system of support for democracy and help for development? Can the organized civil society (NGO sector) be the factor of changes or stabilization for both democratic and non-democratic regimes?

Andrei Yahorau

Andrei Yahorau, the director of the Center for European Transformation, delivered a speech “Statement of question. European transformations at the post-Soviet area in retrospective review over the last 25 years: concept grounds, approaches, practices, results”.

“This is already the third conference that CET has organized. First one was devoted to desovietization, second one — to Belarusization,” recalled the analyst. “And now we are going to talk about democratization and Europeanization, thus finishing the comprehension of democracy transition.”

One of the tasks that the expert is trying to fulfill is related to how to organize transformation and change the norms of Soviet times that now are being realized in Belarus.

“We are trying to change this order to a democratic, European one that serves as a landmark in our work,” the political scientist explained. “I.e. Belarus is transformed from the post-Soviet situation to the social and political order that would be adequate to the modern challenges.”

According to the analyst, for our region this transformation is clearly related to the norms of Europe and European democracy, which is a reformist and trickster position.

“Being in the situation of one social and normative order we are trying to introduce the norms of a different order,” Andrei Yahorau added. “Not being able to fit in any of the normative systems, trickster serves as both the reformist and culture analyst.”

The political scientists told about the criticism of the modern democracy, emphasizing that in the 2000s theoretical arguments regarding the notion of democracy became more acute and continue today.

Tatiana Vadalazhskaya, Uladzimir Matskevich, and Serhiy Datsyuk

The debates regarding rethinking of the programs for support for democracy are also very heated.

“We observe a certain revenge of the authoritarian systems at this territory,” Andrei Yahorau explained. “And obviously, old approaches that were used in the programs of democratic transit are not working at our new space. They require rethinking, which provokes new debate.”

Does the crisis of the normative model that we are using as an example of democracy exist? To answer this question the political scientist referred to Wolfgang Merkel, who says that today the concept of democracy is criticized both by the left and by the right. From time to time modern democracy faces economic crises and actualizes debates, which results in the launch of crisis in administrative and political system’s rationality and its inability to cope with the consequences of economic crisis. As a result, a crisis of legitimatization of democracy appears, and all citizens leave democratic system, abstain from participation in politics, and give no support to political institutes.

Boris Navasardyan, and Uladzimir Matskevich

According to the social polls, citizens are satisfied with the existing form of democracy in different countries, even in such countries as Belarus and Azerbaijan, the analyst emphasized.

“The countries which have the worst indices of freedom and democracy are the most optimistic in the questions of democracy. Belarus, Russia, and Azerbaijan show biggest optimism towards functioning of democracy in the country,” Andrei Yahorau noted. “With all that, skepticism towards the key institutes of democracy is growing.”

Citizens’ trust in the parliament, the government and the system of political parties is gradually decreasing.

Destabilization of democracy is the main factor of its crisis. If system’s stability is disrupted, right forces will enter the game, assumes the expert.

According to the analyst, now Ukraine is lost between two waves of crisis — the crisis of power and the crisis of the public administration. After Ukraine changed the structure of power, the main question for Ukraine now is the structure of administration and how the new government will be able to realize economic reforms. And in the future it will face systemic crisis.

“In the early 1990s post-Soviet countries found themselves in a very complicated divaricating situation structure of support for democracy and development assistance,” recalled Andrei Yahorau.

The analyst remarked that the programs TACIS (Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent States) and PHARE (Poland and Hungary: Aid for Restructuring of the Economies) played an important role in diverging paths of development among former countries of the USSR.

The political scientist emphasized that foreign actors do not understand the processes that are taking place in our region. According to him, their paradigms are based on their own theories, which sometimes are very abstract. For instance, a theory that economic development leads to democratization. And all development programs of the World Bank were aimed at providing the economic growth, whereas construction of political systems was ignored.

“Europe acted as if saying that we it can give you the money but only for democratic reforms, while reforms are related to the loss of control over society, over the power of the regimes that are established in this country. That is why parasitical regimes can easily cheat the promoters of democracy during many years,” Andrei Yahorau is convinced.

Support for democracy is related to formation of pluralism. However, changes are usually related to instability, i.e. with dualism at a certain period, the expert noted.

Within the course of the panel discussion about conceptual grounds and theoretical approaches in practice of democratic transformations Ukrainian philosopher Serhiy Datsyuk and philosopher and methodologist Uladzimir Matskevich, the head of the Board of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus”. Ukrainian representative gave his vision of the crisis of modern European thinking and cognitive evolution, whereas his Belarusan colleague presented Europe as a problem of choice that includes cultural and geopolitical factors, political matter, concept, and idea.

Suren Zolyan, and Vladimir Dounaev

Suren Zolyan, an Armenian expert of the Free University Foundation, spoke on the experience of the transition period from socialist democracy to democratic feudalism.

Igors Vatolins, a board member of the Union of Writers of Latvia, the head of the European Russian initiative of Latvia (EuroRussians), told about democratic transformations in Latvia in the light of the new challenges.

Susann Worschech, a German sociologist from the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), shared the strategy of donors, model of democratization and information about the divided civil society; the methodologist and sociologist Tatiana Vadalazhskaya, who is an senior analyst of the Center for European Transformation, focused on civil society and the problems of modern social transformations.

Igors Vatolins

Video: