On the EU Train

On 1 July 2013, Croatia finally became a member of the EU. I remember how we envied the Bulgarians and Romanians for being admitted before us a few years ago! We really felt this was unjustified, because – as our former president Franjo Tudjman used to say – Croats were “Europeans before Europe”.

The EU has changed over the ten years that have passed since Croatia set out on ist accession process. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the turnout in the 2012 referendum was only 43. 51%. A majority of voters, 66.27%, were in favour of joining the Union but the joy was spoiled by such low levels of participation.

Stability and peace in the region were also mentioned, but it was not the most important item on their wish list.

Opponents of EU membership presented a range of arguments, including the possibility of the EU falling apart, loss of sovereignty and national identity and fears of servitude to foreign capital. Interestingly enough, the political left and right came together on this particular issue of potential losses. Those in favour, especially politicians, spoke in a rather infantile fashion about the goodies they would get: foreign investments, jobs, funding. It made them sound like children waiting for Santa Claus. Stability and peace in the region were also mentioned, but it was not the most important item on their wish list.

In the end, even the Catholic Church supported the referendum. For the clergy, membership or the EU provides definite proof that we Croats (as Catholics) are Europeans – while ‘they’, the Serbs (being Orthodox) are not! Yet the Serbs will also be admitted once they have resolved the problem of Kosovo.

I find this all rather peculiar, because only twenty years ago we in Yugoslavia were fighting wars in an attempt to break away from each other. Now it seems we simply separated in order to unite in a different, but similar union. This is what I call the Balkan paradox. For Croatia, in light of its recent war experiences, peace and security should be more important than potential economic gains.

It is not hard to imagine how they feel. When I was in primary school in Yugoslavia in the late 1950s, we often went on school excursions by train. At the time, trains were divided into three classes. In first class, the seats were upholstered in plush red velvet like at the theatre; second-class carriages were less comfortable, with seats made of light brown plastic that would stick to your skin and smell of – well, plastic. And the third-class wagon did not even have compartments, much less seats. It had rows of hard wooden benches, and sitting on these you really felt like a third-class traveller. It was uncomfortable, dirty and smelly. But there was no chance of simply switching to second class – there was a teacher and also a higher authority, a conductor, who made sure we followed the rules. Our only consolation was that we all travelled on the same train.

If we carry this analogy over to the EU, the first-class wagon is divided between the core, the luxury club that makes the key decisions, and the rest of the euro zone. Then there is second class, which consists of the former communist countries, though there are great differences between Poland and Romania, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. They are all equal, but “some are more equal than others,” as George Orwell so succinctly described it in his 1945 novel Animal Farm (though this was a metaphor for communist society). And then there is the rest, the third-class carriage with its wooden benches. And even this is divided between the bad pupils and the even worse pupils, between those who might get the right grades to make it to the next step, to second class, and the rest.

Then there is second class, which consists of the former communist countries, though there are great differences between Poland and Romania, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria.

The better pupils sit close to the teacher and listen carefully. Then there are those like Ukraine who sit at the back and refuse to pay attention but simply hope they will get there in the end, if only for strategic reasons.

But are we justified in once again bundling together these former Eastern European communist countries, whether they are inside or outside the EU? Those who are luckier or less lucky? After all, the communist bloc collapsed over twenty years ago and these countries finally gained the right to emancipate themselves from the common political denominator and take advantage of their historical differences. They deserve to be seen as individual countries with similar but different histories and even similar but different types of communism, such as goulash communism in Hungary, bunker-communism in Albania and liberal communism in Yugoslavia.

I think we are justified in looking at what was common to them all – from the Czech Republic to Serbia, from Poland to Albania – even if only for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of their post-communist experiences and their current feelings of inadequacy and inequality. Even today, the fact that they all had similar experiences of communism is reflected in a range of common features. Many people there still demonstrate similar habits, behaviours, world views and values, that is to say a certain mentality. And this mentality is very hard to change.

Things were different in Poland, where the revolutionary Solidarity movement was active for many years but still failed to topple the communist government on its own. The collapse of the communist regimes happened more or less without the participation of the people. The system simply imploded. If anything, the passivity of the masses is a major common denominator that influenced the overall mentality. Another part of this mentality is collectivism, as opposed to individualism. This is a way of seeing ourselves as part of a mass, a class, a group, a nation, sometimes even a tribe.

It is difficult for people to start acting as individuals because their experiences of communism make it difficult to believe that an individual opinion, initiative or vote can make a difference for the better, as opposed to just getting them into trouble. Besides, acting as an individual means taking on individual responsibility, something that takes a long time to learn, especially when people are used to blaming a higher authority, even for personal failures. This lack of individual responsibility is proving to be a serious handicap in the post-communist era.

It is difficult for people to start acting as individuals because their experiences of communism make it difficult to believe that an individual opinion, initiative or vote can make a difference for the better.

Another important feature of this inherited mentality is egalitarianism. Recent political and economic changes were understood to be promises of enrichment and a consumer paradise for all. But shifting from a totalitarian to a democratic political system, from a planned economy to capitalism, did not automatically translate into a better life for everyone. There is no doubt that the transition was characterised by a new kind of poverty and insecurity, a growing gap between rich and poor, high unemployment and severe corruption at all levels. Over two decades, disillusionment gradually took hold. Old dreams remained unfulfilled and most of the new promises failed to materialise. This was perceived as injustice. What followed was a widespread mistrust of political elites, democratic procedures and state institutions.

Lost in transition? Maybe. In the wake of the collapse of the financial markets and the euro crisis, it looks as if the locomotive pulling the train has slowed down. It has also become apparent that not every new member of the EU wholeheartedly supports the project, and this gap is widening.

The Czech Republic, Hungary, the Baltic States, Bulgaria and Romania are all expressing this in their own fashion. Their dissatisfaction and distrust is clear, from the government crisis in the Czech Republic to protests against austerity measures in Bucharest and Hungary’s mishandling of the media and the constitution, despite warnings from the EU.

Yet, in June 2012 the Financial Times published the findings of a comparative study suggesting a different conclusion. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank conducted their study in 34 countries in Eastern and Western Europe. Although badly hit by the financial crisis and austerity measures, citizens of the former communist countries appeared to be more satisfied with their lives than citizens in the Western Europe.

It is easy to see why: for them life was still better than before! Does anybody in today’s Eastern Europe who is under thirty remember that not so long ago toilet paper was a luxury in the former communist countries? I suspect my generation is the last one to remember this, and when we are gone it will be entirely forgotten. People who were born after 1989 will ask in bewilderment: you mean there was no toilet paper? That’s not possible! How could you live without it?

If these leaders have little to offer, they can at least provide something or someone to blame, whether it is immigrants, globalisation, hedonism, decadence, capitalism, corruption, democracy, old communists, new oligarchs, the West or gypsies.

Now we have grown accustomed to the changes, but we have also developed a taste for much, much more. This makes us unhappy, because the desire to have much more will have to be postponed for a while in the lucky and less lucky countries, the second and third-class coaches alike. In this respect it seems we are all pretty equal. So even if for a few years the ‘new’ Europeans resisted the prevailing gloom and doom in the West, they are having to give in to it now.

Before 2008 there was hope that the gap between East and West could be bridged more quickly because there was more money and greater motivation. Now, when the entire train seems to be slowing down, there is less and less chance for those at the back. Democracy has its weaknesses and capitalism is in crisis. But what is the alternative? Should we turn towards other neighbours in the East?

But even if their democracy is weak and their political elites corrupt, former communist countries that are now in the EU or on its threshold should remember what life was like only twenty years ago in the clutches of totalitarianism. Forget the soft toilet paper – it is peace and security that should always be on our minds. As EU members, we still have a chance to contribute in this respect. Now we are able to participate and be active in social, economic and political projects of common interest. Isn’t it worth going on?

It should not be forgotten that it is all too easy to slip back into the past if citizens fail to safeguard their new democratic institutions.