The revolutions of 1989 at the end of the 20th century weremajor eventsthat changed the political and economic landscape of Europe. Since the upheaval, all the former countries of the Soviet Union and EasternEuropeansocialistcountries (hereafter, ‘Soviet countries’) have redirected toward the West, undergoing acomprehensive transformation covering political, economic, cultural and other fields, the breadth and depth of which provide new materials and knowledge for “transformation studies”. Now that some thirty years have passed, it is particularly important to review and reflect on the changes, costs and development prospects undergone by the former Soviet countries during their transformation.
On November 8, the 26th Broadyard Workshop (博雅工作坊) of the Institute of Area Studies, Peking University (PKUIAS),was held in Jingyuan’s Building 1. Under the theme of “Thirty Years of ‘Departure from the Soviet Union to the West’ Review and Reflection of the Transformation of Post-Communist Countries,” the workshop invited experts and scholars from PKU, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), Xi’an International Studies University, and Sichuan University and other units to have in-depth exchanges and discussions on the transformation of Central and Eastern European countries (CEE countries).
Lu Nanquan, deputy director of the Institute of Russian, Eastern European & Central Asian Studies, CASS, explicated the tasks, objectives, characteristics of institutional changes, and major problems and causes of Russia’s transformation in various periods during the past 28 years. In his view, Russia’s system transformation and institutional changes were unified. This transformationwas not a reform or improvement within the previous framework, but a radical change. However, in this process, Russia did not settle the problem of economic development at its roots. Especially after the 2008 economic crisis and the Crimea incident in 2014 which triggered Western sanctions, the Russian economy has been ata low ebbfor a long time. Lu Nanquan expressed his belief that the major obstacles in the Russian economic transformation includeda faulty privatization policy, the emergence of many monopolizing economic organizations, the failure of a simultaneous development of systematic transformation and economic restructuring, the lack of a good investment environment, and the decline of the manufacturing and processing industries.
Xu Xiangmei, a research fellow at the Institute of Party History and Literature of the CPC Central Committee, also focused on Russia’s transition. She pointed out that the transformationof the Russian system was completed in a radical way. Political stability was maintained after getting rid of turbulence in the early stage, and economic growth recovered from recession. However, the ups and downs and recurring crises have always been an obstacle for Russia to get on atrack of steady growth. At present, it seems that its structural problems are becoming ingrained habits that cannot be cast off overnight. With the recovery of Crimea, Russia has encountered considerable international tension ever since the start of itstransformation. Xu concluded that to reflect on the road of Russia’s development, we have to answer several questions: Do Russians want to return to the days of the Soviet Union? What kind of society is Russia? She finally expressed her belief that Russia is still exploringways to develop.
Ma Xipu, a research fellow at the Institute of World History, CASS, analyzed three decades of social transition in Eastern Europe. He expressed his beliefthatthe actual social situationin a given country, the satisfaction of its people and the country’s prospects for development formed the criteriaforasuccessful transition in Eastern European countries, rather thantheir joining in EU or NATO, or having left or right political parties come to power, or the social system itself. He said: “We should baseour analysis according to the specific situation of each country. Generally speaking, there have been some changes and achievements since the transformation started, but many problemsstill remain. Some countries are stillencountering difficulties in theirdevelopment.”
Kong Tianping, a research fellow at the Institute of European Studies,CASS, discussed the transformation of CEE countries from an economic perspective. Heexpressed his belief that, now thatCEE countries have established a market economy system, their economic transition has ended. He explained that being an important part of the emerging market, the market economy of CEE countries is different from other emerging counterparts.There are significant differences among the Central European countries, the Baltic countries and the western Balkan countries. This differentiation is reflected not only in the maturity of their market economy system, but also in their economic performance. Specifically, initial conditions, transition strategy and Europeanization are all important factors affecting their transition performance, while the decisive factors lie in economic policies and systems.
Gao Ge, another research fellow from CASS, analyzed the progress of political transformation in CEE countries. Gao pointed out that political transformation refers to a change in the state system toward capitalism and the polity toward the Western democratic system. With the end of the events in 1989, the state system completed its transition; the transition period of the polity, however, will take longer. Different evaluation criteria may come to similar but slightly different judgments on the progress of regime transformation. The economic transformation, diplomatic transformation and national construction of a newly independent country are all carried out simultaneously with its political transformation, which directly affects itsprocess. The socialist system, whichhadbeen implemented for more than 40 years,together with the country’s priorhistorical evolution, constitutes the background of this political transformation, which is of far-reaching significance.
Ji Wengang, an associate professor at the Poland Research Center, Xi’an International Studies University, reviewed the 30years of development of left-wing parties in CEE countries. He said that the left-wing parties in CEE countrieswerepolitical parties with social democratic parties and Communist parties as its main composition. In the period since 1989, left-wing parties have formally stepped onto the political stage of various countries in a new form of party organization, and have become the only political faction to compete with the right-wing parties ina long time.
In its thirty-year development, the left-wing political parties have experienced organizational crises, institutional adaptation, left-right rotation and an overall downturn, forming a relatively stable ideology and policy proposals. Influenced by socialist historical heritage and other factors, and with the obvious decline of the left-wing power in Europeand the rise of populism, the far right and other extremist and anti-institutional parties, the left-wing in CEE countrieswasbound to maintain its downturn for a long time in a complex environment full of inner-party differences and external changes. The future revival of left-wing parties would depend on whether they couldadapt to the new political and social environment through reform.
Yuan Hang, an associate professor at the School of International Studies, Sichuan University, discussed the development of foreign relations in CEE countries from the perspective of multilayer dynamic construction. He expressed his beliefthat the foreign relations of CEE countriescentered on breaking up with the Soviet Union and shifting toward the West, with their accession to EU, NATO and other international organizations as important time nodes.Per Yuan, further discussion was needed on the foreign relations development ofthe countries in Central and Eastern Europe, especially from the historical experience level to the conceptual and theoretical level. Hisspeech put forward a perspective of multilayer dynamic construction, linking Central and Eastern Europe, the EU, the Atlantic region and the global world around issues such as Europeanization and globalization, Atlanticism and changes in the international order, thus aiming to reveal some developmental characteristics and patterns of foreign relations ofCEE countries.
In his concluding remarks, Xiang Zuotao, an associate professor of the School of International Studies, PKU, shared his thoughts on the thirty-year transformation ofCEE countries. He pointed out that during those three decades, CEE countriesexperienceda comprehensive transformation of theirsocial development model, and all the countries hadachieved certain success. However,the transformation processalso led to many problems, represented by not onlypolitical polarization, damage to their economic independence, unequaldistribution of society’swealth, the rise of Euroscepticism and rampant nationalism, but also significant variances in the social development of the different countries. Xiang opined that by investigatingthetransformation over three decades inCEE countries, we canconclude that social transition is a continuous process; althoughreform of the legal and institutional frameworkcan be realized in a short time, system consolidation requires a long time;the relationship between political democracy and economic development is not that strong, and political democracy can not necessarily bring economic prosperity in a short time;and the premise and consequences of the transition are closely linked, and there is a strong relationship between political stability and economic development.The more stable the government, the easier the road of transformation, and the better the result. On the other hand, political division and political instability will bring twists and turns in social development and even the danger of a serious recession.
During the workshop, the experts also discussed the relationship between Russia and CEE countriesandspecific problems encountered by some CEE countries duringthe transformation, as well asdiscussingissues of interest to the audience.
