- Email: [email protected]
Post-totalitarian transition: risk and opportunity
118
POST-TOTALITARIAN TRANSITION: RISKAND OPPORTUNITY MiloS Zeman
The risk of the post-totalitarian transition is identified as the populistic syndrome: in a short-term perspective the totalitarian psychology, though usually disguised, still prevails. The opportunity lies in a longer-term privatization process, which is an economic and-perhaps even more important-a social task, namely through combining educational programmes with the participation of the workforce. This argument is developed in essay scenario form.
There is no theory of transition from communistic totalitarian to democratic systems. Sometimes, the necessity of such a theory is denied and the theories of change applied to normally functioning societies are regarded as sufficient. However, and unfortunately, though jogging maybe good for a healthy organism, it is no remedy for a cancer-stricken one. After the democratic revolutions, the structure of political power has changed in the Middle European countries. But the deeper behavioural patterns of the population are nearly the same. From that point of view, these countries are still intoxicated by the totalitarian poison. The risk is that in the transition process a fertile hunting ground exists for populism, new Jacobinians and fundamentalists. A gradual, long-term process of detoxification represents the opportunity. Given this, education is even more necessary than capital investment. Combining education and participation might in the long run lead to development of post-industrial information societies in Europe’s east. Populism might produce only 19th-century-style capitalism. The illusion of another Maoist ‘big leap’ into the developed world will rather foster instability in the post-totalitarian countries. New types of totalitarian systems could even occur, including the paradoxical communism with an anti-communistic phraseology. As the French philosopher and moralist Michel de Montaigne (1533-93) stated-after the evil, the good does not necessarily follow. A new, different evil, even worse than what went before, may also possibly emerge. MiloS Zeman is Head of the Department of Simulation Modelling, Institute for Futures Research, Opletalova 19, IIOOO-Prague 1, Czechoslovakia. Zeman is also Chairman of the Committee for Planning and Budget, House of Nations, Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia.
0016-3287/020118-04 @ 1992 Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
FUTURES March 1992
Post-totalitarian
The pop&tic
transition
119
syndrome
The totalitarian heritage-still present and active-may populistic syndrome with the following components.
be described
as a
(7) The uniformity of society-a total lack of any officially accepted differentiation of its members. This might lead to the creation of new monolithic political movements. Paradoxically enough, a right-wing Leninist-type political party could re-appear. In this case, the recently revitalized central-rightist political value, individualism, will be completely suppressed anew and substituted by the obedience to a charismatic leader. No internal party fractions will be tolerated, and no displays of personality except from the leader. The political crowd will be happy, aggressive and brainless. (2) Egalitarianism- social envy might be the main force of social homogenization at the lowest possible level. Campaigns against ‘suspicious performance’ would perhaps begin. The egalitarian approach could even be applied in such areas as privatization-the state’s property to be distributed by vouchers to all citizens in equal shares. (3) Authoritarian leadership-the overwhelming majority of the population of the post-totalitarian countries are still only inhabitants, not citizens. They strive to transfer their own responsibility to the leader. The persistent myth of the fortress, threatened by an external or internal enemy, the misuse of nationalism, might intensify this tendency. Because of the lack of true personalities, a ‘Bonapartism without Bonaparte’ is even a possibility. (4) Fear of pluralism-the monolithic, egalitarian, authoritarian party is again the single guarantor of the road to a bright future. Its concept of social transformation is the only possible one. There are no futures but the one and only future. Faith needs no dialogue with the heretics. But any alternative which is not confronted by its opponents, degenerates. The absence of a feedback control makes this alternative look like a Gulf War with Scud but without Patriot missiles. (5) Fear of the consequences-a simulation of long-term response to present decisions is highly undesirable. Populism might be defined as the absolute preference of the short-term response to the long-term one. Strategic planning is eschewed as being a communistic symbol. Delays in investment decisions increase internal debts. Non-economic development factors are undervalued. Marxist economic determinism is accepted in practice. (6) Orwellian approach to history--all the adult population have been enthusiastic partisans in the fight against the communist tyranny. There has been neither collaboration nor corruption for the past few decades. Even low productivity was some kind of sabotage. Sometimes, a scapegoat will be found-mainly among the actual former dissidents-but our brave compatriots were never intoxicated by communist psychology.
FUTURES hiarch 1992
120
Post-totalitarian
transition
(7) Illiteracy-we are not a t&u/a rasa, we are distorted by misinterpretations of the facts. Tacitly accepted misinformedness is the continuation of that process-illiteracy changing its colour from red to brown. The readers of the single sacrosanct book still prevail. A lack of adaptability, communication and performance is the consequence. We have no partners but enemies, no tolerant dialogue but revenge. This catastrophic scenario of the populistic future of post-totalitarian countries is meant to be a self-defeating prophecy. The newly emerging totality is a symmetrical copy of the old one with the same paradigm. If any former critique of communism was accused as being rightist, any critique of the possible new totality is accused as being leftist. The main task for our future education is to change that narrow-minded paradigm, not only to change its colour.
The participation society We are like animals released from a game reservation or a concentration camp. Without the necessary instincts, we again look for our guard. The Jacobinian escalation of fear might be a response to disappointment with the slow pace of improvement. On the road from Mr Hyde to Dr Jekyll, political democracy and a market economy are necessary, but not sufficient conditions. Given this, and without any noticeable developmental progress, a ‘new India’ might emerge in Middle Europe. The history of Czechoslovakia has deep roots in education and culture. Its military weakness, common to small nations, forced the country to place its hopes on teachers and schools. A massive qualification programme might be the differentia specifica for the return to the club of developed countries. Education is not only a means for fostering the future information society, but also a process of the cultivation of values. In order to avoid the risk of populism, this orientation seems to be necessary. A new take-off is impossible without money. On the other hand, foreign aid is important but not decisive: a society without endeavour to accept postponed reward is a society without internal strength. We must accept some kind of delayed consumption as a sacrifice. Nonetheless, to finance the programme of educational, environmental and cultural investment from the resources of a weak state budget is not sufficient. That is why non-budget resources are to be reactivated. One possibility lies in the privatization process. The amount of state property is higher than domestic savings. This has led to a gratis privatization by vouchers. But there is a different solution-to capitalize not only present stocks (savings), but also future flows (incomes) In this way a continuous capital flow could by long-term instalments. finance long-term non-economic programmes. One of the possible methods for such a privatization is the Employee’s Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). Small-scale privatization might also be realized by leasing. In both cases, a part of the future income is devoted to instalment payments. If the dividends are higher than the instalments and people pay as they earn, domestic capital may gradually be created. Anonymous state ownership might be altered into co-ownership by the
FUTURES March 1992
Post-totalitarian
transition
121
employees. This form of participation may increase the motivation of the workforce. The post-totalitarian states are at a crossroads of their history. Their central problem is only seemingly the problem of a concrete privatization method. If free privatization is applied by vouchers, it will lead to 19th~century-style capitalism. If the participative style of privatization prevails, additional sources will emerge for financing educational programmes or ecological investment. Moreover, the alienation between labour and ownership might be overcome. We shall avoid the creation of new mafias. The dictatorship of the market could change the position of the historical pendulum from the extreme left to the extreme right. But the sense of the revolution was not the substitution of Brezhnev by Pinochet. Thus, the combination of education and participation might create a positive feedback loop, which would be a vehicle for the transition trajectory. The outcome of that trajectory is not the mechanical restitution of the pre-totalitarian state. The outcome of any transition is to be the future.
FUTURES March 1992
POST-TOTALITARIAN TRANSITION: RISKAND OPPORTUNITY MiloS Zeman
The risk of the post-totalitarian transition is identified as the populistic syndrome: in a short-term perspective the totalitarian psychology, though usually disguised, still prevails. The opportunity lies in a longer-term privatization process, which is an economic and-perhaps even more important-a social task, namely through combining educational programmes with the participation of the workforce. This argument is developed in essay scenario form.
There is no theory of transition from communistic totalitarian to democratic systems. Sometimes, the necessity of such a theory is denied and the theories of change applied to normally functioning societies are regarded as sufficient. However, and unfortunately, though jogging maybe good for a healthy organism, it is no remedy for a cancer-stricken one. After the democratic revolutions, the structure of political power has changed in the Middle European countries. But the deeper behavioural patterns of the population are nearly the same. From that point of view, these countries are still intoxicated by the totalitarian poison. The risk is that in the transition process a fertile hunting ground exists for populism, new Jacobinians and fundamentalists. A gradual, long-term process of detoxification represents the opportunity. Given this, education is even more necessary than capital investment. Combining education and participation might in the long run lead to development of post-industrial information societies in Europe’s east. Populism might produce only 19th-century-style capitalism. The illusion of another Maoist ‘big leap’ into the developed world will rather foster instability in the post-totalitarian countries. New types of totalitarian systems could even occur, including the paradoxical communism with an anti-communistic phraseology. As the French philosopher and moralist Michel de Montaigne (1533-93) stated-after the evil, the good does not necessarily follow. A new, different evil, even worse than what went before, may also possibly emerge. MiloS Zeman is Head of the Department of Simulation Modelling, Institute for Futures Research, Opletalova 19, IIOOO-Prague 1, Czechoslovakia. Zeman is also Chairman of the Committee for Planning and Budget, House of Nations, Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia.
0016-3287/020118-04 @ 1992 Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
FUTURES March 1992
Post-totalitarian
The pop&tic
transition
119
syndrome
The totalitarian heritage-still present and active-may populistic syndrome with the following components.
be described
as a
(7) The uniformity of society-a total lack of any officially accepted differentiation of its members. This might lead to the creation of new monolithic political movements. Paradoxically enough, a right-wing Leninist-type political party could re-appear. In this case, the recently revitalized central-rightist political value, individualism, will be completely suppressed anew and substituted by the obedience to a charismatic leader. No internal party fractions will be tolerated, and no displays of personality except from the leader. The political crowd will be happy, aggressive and brainless. (2) Egalitarianism- social envy might be the main force of social homogenization at the lowest possible level. Campaigns against ‘suspicious performance’ would perhaps begin. The egalitarian approach could even be applied in such areas as privatization-the state’s property to be distributed by vouchers to all citizens in equal shares. (3) Authoritarian leadership-the overwhelming majority of the population of the post-totalitarian countries are still only inhabitants, not citizens. They strive to transfer their own responsibility to the leader. The persistent myth of the fortress, threatened by an external or internal enemy, the misuse of nationalism, might intensify this tendency. Because of the lack of true personalities, a ‘Bonapartism without Bonaparte’ is even a possibility. (4) Fear of pluralism-the monolithic, egalitarian, authoritarian party is again the single guarantor of the road to a bright future. Its concept of social transformation is the only possible one. There are no futures but the one and only future. Faith needs no dialogue with the heretics. But any alternative which is not confronted by its opponents, degenerates. The absence of a feedback control makes this alternative look like a Gulf War with Scud but without Patriot missiles. (5) Fear of the consequences-a simulation of long-term response to present decisions is highly undesirable. Populism might be defined as the absolute preference of the short-term response to the long-term one. Strategic planning is eschewed as being a communistic symbol. Delays in investment decisions increase internal debts. Non-economic development factors are undervalued. Marxist economic determinism is accepted in practice. (6) Orwellian approach to history--all the adult population have been enthusiastic partisans in the fight against the communist tyranny. There has been neither collaboration nor corruption for the past few decades. Even low productivity was some kind of sabotage. Sometimes, a scapegoat will be found-mainly among the actual former dissidents-but our brave compatriots were never intoxicated by communist psychology.
FUTURES hiarch 1992
120
Post-totalitarian
transition
(7) Illiteracy-we are not a t&u/a rasa, we are distorted by misinterpretations of the facts. Tacitly accepted misinformedness is the continuation of that process-illiteracy changing its colour from red to brown. The readers of the single sacrosanct book still prevail. A lack of adaptability, communication and performance is the consequence. We have no partners but enemies, no tolerant dialogue but revenge. This catastrophic scenario of the populistic future of post-totalitarian countries is meant to be a self-defeating prophecy. The newly emerging totality is a symmetrical copy of the old one with the same paradigm. If any former critique of communism was accused as being rightist, any critique of the possible new totality is accused as being leftist. The main task for our future education is to change that narrow-minded paradigm, not only to change its colour.
The participation society We are like animals released from a game reservation or a concentration camp. Without the necessary instincts, we again look for our guard. The Jacobinian escalation of fear might be a response to disappointment with the slow pace of improvement. On the road from Mr Hyde to Dr Jekyll, political democracy and a market economy are necessary, but not sufficient conditions. Given this, and without any noticeable developmental progress, a ‘new India’ might emerge in Middle Europe. The history of Czechoslovakia has deep roots in education and culture. Its military weakness, common to small nations, forced the country to place its hopes on teachers and schools. A massive qualification programme might be the differentia specifica for the return to the club of developed countries. Education is not only a means for fostering the future information society, but also a process of the cultivation of values. In order to avoid the risk of populism, this orientation seems to be necessary. A new take-off is impossible without money. On the other hand, foreign aid is important but not decisive: a society without endeavour to accept postponed reward is a society without internal strength. We must accept some kind of delayed consumption as a sacrifice. Nonetheless, to finance the programme of educational, environmental and cultural investment from the resources of a weak state budget is not sufficient. That is why non-budget resources are to be reactivated. One possibility lies in the privatization process. The amount of state property is higher than domestic savings. This has led to a gratis privatization by vouchers. But there is a different solution-to capitalize not only present stocks (savings), but also future flows (incomes) In this way a continuous capital flow could by long-term instalments. finance long-term non-economic programmes. One of the possible methods for such a privatization is the Employee’s Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). Small-scale privatization might also be realized by leasing. In both cases, a part of the future income is devoted to instalment payments. If the dividends are higher than the instalments and people pay as they earn, domestic capital may gradually be created. Anonymous state ownership might be altered into co-ownership by the
FUTURES March 1992
Post-totalitarian
transition
121
employees. This form of participation may increase the motivation of the workforce. The post-totalitarian states are at a crossroads of their history. Their central problem is only seemingly the problem of a concrete privatization method. If free privatization is applied by vouchers, it will lead to 19th~century-style capitalism. If the participative style of privatization prevails, additional sources will emerge for financing educational programmes or ecological investment. Moreover, the alienation between labour and ownership might be overcome. We shall avoid the creation of new mafias. The dictatorship of the market could change the position of the historical pendulum from the extreme left to the extreme right. But the sense of the revolution was not the substitution of Brezhnev by Pinochet. Thus, the combination of education and participation might create a positive feedback loop, which would be a vehicle for the transition trajectory. The outcome of that trajectory is not the mechanical restitution of the pre-totalitarian state. The outcome of any transition is to be the future.
FUTURES March 1992