EASTERN EUROPE: EU No Instant Paradise

By Zoltán Dujisin Reprint | | Print |

Analysis by Zoltán Dujisin

BRUSSELS, Nov 24 2006 (IPS) - Nationalism, corruption, populism and violence are terms increasingly associated with some of the events seen in the Central and Eastern European countries that joined the European Union (EU) in May 2004. But whether there are reasons for concern is still open to debate.

The ten countries that joined the European Union May 2004 to make it a 25-member union were Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Bulgaria and Romania are due to join Jan. 1 next year.

In unprecedented scenes in Hungary’s post-communist history, and in the midst of a looming economic crisis and pending austerity measures, nationalist anti-government protesters took to the streets, often violently, to demand the resignation of a prime minister who admitted lying to the electorate to win last April’s elections.

Hungary’s northern neighbour Slovakia was recently the target of EU criticism following several reports on alleged attacks on ethnic Hungarians. Most analysts connected the resurgence of ethnic hatred to the June 2006 election of a coalition government which included an outspokenly nationalist party.

In Poland, the biggest of the new EU members with a 40 million population, the 2005 parliamentary and presidential elections rewarded right-wing populists, who are often engaging in anti-EU rhetoric. The low turnout was seen as indicative of popular disillusionment with numerous corruption scandals and with politics in general.

While not experiencing such a visible crisis, the Czech Republic has been without government for six months now, after the legislative elections ended in a left-right impasse. Czech politicians have seemed busier accusing each other of corruption and power abuse than with resolving the deadlock.

The problems facing these post-communist nations are, however, different in nature. “I don’t consider it to be a crisis and there is not much the EU can do about it, because we are speaking of very different issues,” Giles Merritt, secretary-general of Friends of Europe, an independent Brussels-based think-tank told IPS.

“Of course you get some socialist nostalgia, some nationalism, but these are normal developments. To me they look very healthy; it’s just democracy in action, the tension of rediscovering it.”

Yet Merritt acknowledges some of the disenchantment in the region is associated with expectations that have not been fulfilled by the EU. “The idea of EU membership was hugely simplified both in the EU and outside it,” he says. “There were no long-term goals; it was presented as a wonderful panacea, but it’s just the beginning of a long process.”

In order to join the EU, the former candidate countries from Central and Eastern Europe had to undergo several harsh structural reforms that left discontent in many sectors of society. Yet many hoped life would quickly improve once they had joined the ‘European family’.

“EU accession gave needed rigorous adjustments which you could not avoid,” says Merritt. “But the conditions of the May 2004 enlargement were tough, more than for previous enlargements of richer countries.”

Accusations of a democratic deficit within the EU became more common as citizens across the region felt powerless to affect the ‘inevitable’ reforms demanded by the supra-national organisation.

“There was a sense of powerlessness, but it’s something you see all over the EU,” Merritt says. “Some of its processes are far too complicated, and the price to pay is that people feel they didn’t have a word to say, that it wasn’t democratic.”

The EU is even starting to get the blame for some home-grown problems, at least according to a Czech government official in Brussels who spoke to IPS on condition of anonymity.

“The new members are like a child going through puberty, they are not trustworthy long-term partners,” he said. “Blaming the EU is easy, because much of the electorate is still politically naïve and prone to manipulation by populist politicians.”

In this context, nationalism comes to play only when it can bring benefits to political parties. “It’s like a pendulum, it has been going this way and that for long now.”

Yet the official refuses the idea of a widespread crisis, as long as the new members keep sensing economic growth and development. “There will only be a crisis if there is an economic decline; in the meantime, politicians can even get away with being corrupt as long as living standards are decent.”

Still, economic prosperity has not sufficed in stabilising societies in the region. In the background of discontent with the European Union lies a deeper disillusionment with many of the processes that took place following the collapse of state socialism in 1989.

“The majority of people in these societies experienced a drop in living standards. Transition from socialism created huge inequalities, and was especially hard on pensioners and people from the countryside,” Hungarian sociologist Ferenc Hammer told IPS. “For them it meant very heavy poverty.”

But the economic disaster was combined with a crisis in values, leaving many with the feeling that “their future had been taken away”.

“There was a turn in terms of accepted values and social hierarchies,” Hammer says. “Before, the ideal good man was the one who was faithful to his working place for decades. Then, in 1990, it turns out he was a loser.”

“This creates a nervous atmosphere in society,” says Hammer, in reference to some of the outbursts witnessed in the region. “These societies lack a sense of being in a place in the world.”