Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:08:56.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Background to the Study of Opposition in Communist Eastern Europe*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

H. Gordon Skilling
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

TO DISCUSS ‘OPPOSITION’ IN A ONE-PARTY SYSTEM, AND IN PARTICULAR in a communist one, might seem on first thought to involve a contradiction in terms. Communist governments have normally been regarded in the West as systems without opposition except in the form of illegal resistance by sections of the population to the regimes themselves. Yet Leonard Schapiro, in his foreword to the first issue of the journal, Government and Opposition, expressed the view that both government and opposition are always and at all times present (or potentially present) in every political order and referred to ‘the tentative process of loyal dissent’ becoming apparent in one-party states. A striking feature of many of the communist states since the death of Stalin has in fact been the emergence of political tendencies that can only be called ‘oppositional’, in the form either of resisting policies enacted or offered by the ruling party, or of proposing alternative courses of action. The observation of these tendencies by Western scholars, and the analysis of the experience of noncommunist states in Africa and Asia, have led to a re-examimtion of the nature of one-party states in general, and to the recognition that not only has opposition never been totally absent from communist systems, but that it has assumed more vigorous and varied forms in recent years.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , 01 July 1968 , pp. 294 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Vol. 1, No. 1, October 1965, pp. 1, 3.

2 See in particular the special issue, ‘The Dead End of the Monolithic Parties’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 2, No. 2, Jan. Apr. 1967, pp. 165–80, and ensuing articles in the same issue. See also two earlier articles by Wjatr, Jerzy J. and Przeworski, Adam, ‘Control without Opposition’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 1, No. 2, 01 1966, pp. 227–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Ionescu, Ghica, ‘Control and Contestation in some One‐Party States’, ibid., pp. 240–50.Google Scholar In a fuller study, The Politics of the European Communist States (London, 1967), Ghita Ionescu modified some of the concepts and definitions quoted here. Cf. Scott, D. J. R., ‘Resistance and Opposition’, Survey, No. 64, 07 1967, PP. 34–44.Google Scholar

3 Dahl, Robert A (ed.), Political Opposition in Western Democracies, New Haven and London, 1966, p. 332.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., passim.

5 Ibid., pp. xi–xii, xiv.

6 Ionescu uses the term ‘political opposition’ to refer to opposition that is ‘institutionalized, recognized and legitimate’. In this sense, communist states are, in his view, ‘oppositionless’. Nonetheless, there exists ‘opposition’ in a broader sense, signifying ‘any concerted attitude or action, spontaneous or deliberate, sporadic or continuous, of anomic or associational groups under any circumstances or by any means’. (The Politics of the European Communist States, pp. 2–3).

7 See Schapiro, Leonard, ‘“Putting the Lid on Leninism”, Opposition and Dissent in the Communist One‐party States’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 2, No. 2, 01. 04, 1967, pp. 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See the fuller treatment in his book, The Origin of the Communist Autocracy, Political Opposition in the Soviet State. First Phase, 1917–1922, London, Cambridge, 1955. See also Barghoom, Frederick C., ‘Soviet Political Doctrine and the Problem of Opposition’, Bucknell Review, XII, 2, 05 1964, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

8 See Daniels, Robert V., The Conscience of the Revolution, Communist Opposition in Soviet Rursia, Cambridge, 1960.Google Scholar

9 M. Mihajlov, lecturer at the University of Split, was imprisoned in 1966 and again in 1967 for criticizing the one‐party system and seeking to establish an opposition journal. Cf. the rejection of the idea of an opposition party by a Czech theorist, Mejstřik, V., ‘The Concept and Practice of Party Democracy’, Nová mysl, XX, 8, 19 04 1966 , 29–31.Google Scholar

10 In Hungary, for instance, the existence of ‘separate platforms’ or ‘factions’ within the party was explicitly rejected by the party daily newspaper, Nepszabadsag, 16 May 1963. Cf. the views of the Czech leader, J. Hendrych, (Rudd právo, 10 February 1967) that there can be ‘different opinions on different problems’, but not ‘representatives of different ideologies’.

11 This is dose to what Robert Dahl refers to as revolutionary ‘structural opposition’. See Political Oppositions in Western Democracies, p. 342. It is not unlike what Brzezinski and Huntington call ‘alienation’ or ‘unorthodox dissent’. See Political Power: USA/USSR, New York, 1964, pp. 114, 105, resp. Barghoorn, in his chapter in this volume, uses the term ‘subversive’. Cf. the term, ‘contestation’, employed by Ionescu, ‘Control and Contestation’, cited above, p. 241. This was defined as ‘the anti‐system, basic and permanent postulates of any opposition on the grounds of fundamental dichotomic differences of opinion and ideologies’. In his book, cited above, he has abandoned this term and employs the word ‘dissent’, which, he argues, is not always against the government or the holders of power (op. cit., pp. 169, 178).

12 Yugov was described by one of his critics in 1962 as being the only Premier who was in opposition to his own government.

13 Barghoorn uses the term ‘segmental’ opposition. This is comparable to Nove’s, Alex ‘dissent within consensus’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 2, No. 2, 01. 04, 1967, pp. 175–6.Google Scholar Cf. the term ‘orthodox dissent’, in Brzezinski and Huntington, op. cit., p. 110. Ionescu and Wjatr use the concept of ‘control’ in this connection. lonescu defines ‘political control’as non‐constitutional and non‐institutional direct participation in, and influencing of, the decision‐making processes in a non‐parliamentary society by forces, groups and agencies indispensable to the running of that society (Control and Contestation, p. 240). Wjatr and Przeworski define control in the political sense as ‘the possibility of influencing those who hold power in such a way that they take into account the interests of groups exerting this control’ (Op. cit., p. 231). In his book cited above, Ionescu has abandoned the term ‘control’ (as well as that of ‘contestation’) and replaced it with that of ‘checks’. He classifies the two major forms of opposition in communist states as (1) ‘political’ or ‘plural checks’, exercised on the party by subordinate apparatuses, such as the state or the trade unions, as well as by broader unorganized social groups, such as the workers and peasants, and certain constitutional bodies, such as the courts, the assemblies, local government organs and the press, and (2) ‘dissent’, expressed by other groups such as the churches, the students and universities, the cultural reviews, etc. Checks give expression to ‘interests’ contradictory to those of the party apparat; dissent to ‘values’ contrary to those officially demanded (Op. cit., pp. 2–3, 90–5, and Parts II and III).

14 Schapiro defines ‘opposition’ as ‘an organized political group, or groups, of which the aim is to oust the government in power and to replace it by one of its own choosing’. ‘Dissent’, on the other hand, seeks ‘merely to criticize, to exhort, to persuade, and to be listened to’. (Government and Opposition, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 182–3).

15 Whether an opposition should be regarded as ‘orthodox’ or ‘unorthodox’ will depend on the context of their ideas in relation to more traditional versions of communism, and on the views of the incumbents in power who may them‐selves hold ideologically unorthodox views.

16 For the above see my book, The Governments of Communist East Europe, New York, 1966, especially pp. 36–9.

17 See the author’s Communism National and International, Toronto, 1964.

18 A conspiracy trial was held in Albania in 1961, and in Bulgaria in 1965. Individual arrests and trials for conspiracy have occurred in other countries, notably Hungary, but also in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia.

19 Cf. Dahl, Political Opposition in Wastern Democracies, pp. 354–6.

20 Smith, Jean, ‘The German Democratic Republic and the West’, International Journal, XXII, No. 2, Spring, 1967, pp. 231–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 In defending this policy, Kadar argued that, although Hungary had a one‐party system, they should work as though there were a twenty‐party system and a secret election every day (The New York Times, 7 March 1962).

22 Wjatr, Jerzy J., ‘Elements of the Pluralism (sic) in the Polish Political System’, The Polish Sociological Bulletin, No. 1, 1966, p. 25.Google Scholar

23 In a sermon, Cardinal Wyszinski stated: We have to stand up before the rulers, princes and authorities and calmly and bravely proclaim the Gospel. The people could be without kings, leaders, premiers and ministers, but never with‐out its shepherd. The bishop is the good shepherd who faces the wolves, and although hurt, defends the people against hatred, falsehood and harm' (The New York Times, 31 January 1966).

24 See Gomulka’s speech of 14 January 1966, and the editorial, in Nome Drogi, April 1966.

25 See Ionescu's book, pp. 227 for a discussion of factionalism.

26 E.g., the removal of Yugov in Bulgaria in 1962; of Ranković in Yugoslavia in 1966; of Novotný in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

27 Skilling, Governments of Communist East Europe, pp. 91–7.

28 See Triska, Jan F., ‘The Party Apparatchiks at Bay’, East Europe, 16, 12 (12. 1967), pp. 2–8.Google Scholar

29 See, for instance, articles by Lantay, A., Ekonomickýčasopis, No. 6, 1963 and Pravda (Slovak), 18 05 1964 Google Scholar; and by Lakatoš, M., Právný obzor, No. 1, 1965.Google Scholar

30 This was the phrase used by Hendrych, in the article cited above. The Czech theorist, Z. Mlynář, has described the leading role of the party as involving ‘the conscious embodiment of the interests of the whole society in its entirety, but also the deliberate harmonization of these interests’. See his article, ‘Problems of Political Leadership and the New Economic System’, Problemy mira i sotsialisma, No. 12, December 1965, p. 98. The Polish scholar, J. Wjatr, has referred to the party as ‘the forum of the expression of the non‐antagonistic classes of interests of various socialist strata of the Polish society’, and as ‘the platform where the divergent interests of the socialist society collide’. Although the struggle of class interests takes place outside the party, the ‘resolution of conflicts which harmonize the interests of workers and their allies’ takes place within the party and is guaranteed by intra‐party democracy. See Wjatr, Jerzy J., ‘The Elements of the Pluralism in the Polish Political System’, The Polish Sociological Bulletin, No. 1, 1966, pp. 22–3.Google Scholar

31 Z. Mlynář, in an important article already cited, rejected ‘the effort to solve these problems without discussions and controversies, without democratic deliberation of various possible alternatives, without serious scientific and theoretical elaboration of the perspectives of development’ (P. 93). Cf. I. Santa, ‘Debate and Party Unity’, Traradalmi Szemle, June 1967. He refers to the ‘participation of experts’, ‘drawing up and presenting several alternatives or … several platforms. This makes the comparison of differing concepts possible, a choice among them or their eventual combination or even their rejection, as well as agreement between the demands of expertise and democracy.’Cf. Soukup, M., ‘On the Conception and Tasks of Political Science’, Novel mysl, XX, 18, 6 09 1966 , pp. 13–15.Google Scholar

32 For a fuller discussion of these concepts see the introduction to the forth‐coming book edited by H. Gordon Skilling and Franklyn Griffiths, Interest Groups in Soviet Politics. See also my article, ‘Interest Groups and Communist Politics’, World Politics, XVIII, 3, April 1966, pp. 435–31. Cf. Wjatr and Przeworski, op. cit., pp. 232–8. Ionescu (The Politics of the European Communist States, pp. 88–95, 226) is critical of such an interest group approach, but himself treats ‘political checks’ and ‘dissent’ as two distinct forms of interest group activity.

33 Beck, Carl, ‘Bureaucratic Conservatism and Innovation in Eastern Europe’, paper presented at the American Political Science Association, September 1966, mimeo.Google Scholar

34 Tito has, however, felt it necessary to stress the political role of the League of Communists. See The New York Timer, 22 November 1966.

35 See Chrypinski, V. C., ‘Legislative Committees in Polish Lawmaking’, Slavic Review, XXV, 2, 06 1966, pp. 247–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 East Europe, 16: 1 and 2 (January and February 1967), pp. 28 and 37 resp.

37 See Jerzy J. Wjatr, ‘One‐party Systems – The Concept and Issue for Comparative Studies’, in Transactions of Westermarck Society, Vol. X, Allardt, E. and Littunen, Y. (eds.), Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems, Contributions to Comparative Political Sociology, Helsinki, 1964, pp. 281–90.Google Scholar He there argues that the Polish system is not strictly speaking a one‐party system, but rather a ‘hegemonical party system’, in which other parties exist as well as the Communist Party, but as in the one‐party states, there is no real competition for power and no political opposition.

38 Wjatr and Przeworski, op. cit., pp. 238–9. A fuller analysis of Polish elections is given by Wjatr in his chapter on ‘Elections and Voting Behaviour in Poland’, in Ranney, A. (ed.), Essays on the Behavioural Study of Politics, Urbana, 1962, pp. 237–51.Google Scholar Sec p. 239. For further discussion of the Polish system, see Wjatr, ‘One‐party Systems’, cited above, pp. 287–9; Wjatr, ‘The Electoral System and Elements of Pluralism in a “One Party” System: Poland’, Transactions of the Fifth World Congress of Sociology, International Sociological Association, 1962, Vol. IV, pp. 381–6.

39 Wjatr, in Ranney, op. cit., p. 251.

40 Ibid., p. 239.

41 This has been called Yugoslavia's ‘non–party system’ (The New York Times, 29 May 1966). A Yugoslav, M. Popović, has used the term ‘non‐party system’. See Stanković, S., ‘Yugoslavia's Critical Year’, East Europe, 16, 4, 04 1967, p. 16.Google Scholar See also Burks, R. V. and Stankovid, S. A., ‘Jugoslawien auf dem Weg zu halbfreien Wahlen’, Osteuropa, 17, 2/3 (02, 03 1967), pp. 131–46.Google Scholar For further discussion of elections in communist countries of Eastern Europe, see my book, The Governments of Communist East Europe, pp. 130–4.

42 For instance, see the articles by Miroslav Jodl, a Czech sociologist, in Literární noviny, 13 November 1965, and 22 January 1966. Cf. also the Polish discussion in 1965 of Adam Schaff's book, Marxism and the Individual, and of his concept of the power elite and alienation under communism. The Slovak, M. Lakatoš, has written of the manipulation of the ruled by the rulers and urged genuinely free elections as a means of preventing this (Právný obzor, No. 3, 1966, also translated in East Europe, 15, No. 6 (June 1966), pp. 22–3).

43 Christian Science Monitor, 31 March 1966.

44 The daily organ of the Hungarian People's Front, Magyar Nemzet (28 August 1966), used this as an argument that an opposition party was not necessary. Criticism, it declared, is ‘the essence of opposition’. In Hungary, ‘the party and the government criticize everything at all times where things are not going as they should’ and thus ‘supply the checking and criticizing functions of an opposition’.

45 Z. Mlynář (Rudé prävo, 16 August 1966). The same writer, in the international communist organ, argued that these organizations should not serve as mere transmission belts operating in one direction only (Problemy mira i sotsialisma, December 1965, p. 97). The Polish writer, Wjatr, has written of the dual functions of various interest groups, serving not only as ‘pressure groups’, which ‘represent the interests of their groups vis‐à‐vis the Party and the government’, but also as ‘mobilizing groups’, which mobilize their members to the tasks put forth by party and government (Polish Sociological Bulletin, cited above, p. 24).

46 See Student, No. 4, 1966.

47 See for instance the speech by Kadar, on 26 November 1966. Cf. also the resolution of the Congress of the Hungarian Youth Union in July 1967.

48 Gamarnikow, M., ‘New Tasks for the Trade Unions’, East Europe, 16, No. 4, 04 1967, pp. 18–26.Google Scholar

49 Cf. Pastyřík, M., ‘Trade Unions and Participation of the Workers in the Direction of Production’, Nová mysl, XX, 22, 3 11 1966 , pp. 6–9.Google Scholar

50 For instance, in 1964 the letter to the government of 34 writers protesting against the censorship and paper restrictions, and the mass demonstrations by Polish students in 1968.

51 See my book, Communism, National and International, Toronto, 1964, Chap. 7, for a detailed discussion of the events of 1963.

52 See the Central Committee resolution on the cultural periodicals, Rudé právo, 4 April 1964, and subsequent official denunciations. Iri early 1966, the party organ, Život strany (No. 1, January 1966) had to refer again to ‘disquieting tendencies’ in these periodicals and to charge them with failing to eliminate their shortcomings. In 1967 Literární noviny was taken out of the hands of the union, and placed under the Ministry of Culture. In 1968 the union began to publish a new organ, Literární listy.

53 Note the role of, for instance, Oto Šik, E. Loebl and R. Selucký and other reform‐minded economists in Czechoslovakia. Similar discussions occurred in Bulgaria, Hungary and Yugoslavia.

54 For instance, note the role of Prof. L. Kolakowski, dissident Polish Marxist philosopher, or that of the East German, Wolfgang Harich, imprisoned in 1965 for his revisionism. Cf. the expression of dissident Marxist views by the Slovene theoretical journal, Praxis.

55 Note such demands by the Czech economist, Loebl; the Slovak writer, L. Novomeský; the Polish scientist, T. Kotarbinski; and the East German scientist, R. Havemann.

56 The Czech, J. Hájek, distinguished between ‘liberalization’ and ‘democratization’ and rejected the former because it permitted all kinds of opinion and afforded ‘equal rights to the opposition’ (Rude prdvo, 1 April 1966).

57 The case of Literdrní neviny Czechoslovakia has been mentioned. Earlier, in Poland, the newspapers, Po Prostu, and Kultura, were closed down: in Yugoslavia, in 1964, Perspektive, and in Czechoslovakia, in 1966, Tvař, were stopped. A prominent case of expulsion was the Polish philosopher, Kolakowski. In East Germany, Professor Havemann was deprived of his posts in the University, but remained at liberty. In 1964–5, in Poland, Kuron and Modzelewski were imprisoned for their opposition activity. In Yugoslavia, in addition to the well‐known case of Djilas, that of Mihajlov has already been referred to. In Czechoslovakia, three prominent writers were expelled from the party in 1967, and another, L. Mnačko, who left for Israel, was also deprived of his citizenship.

58 A notable case was the resistance to Kolakowski's expulsion by students and intellectuals. Letters of protest by writers led to further expulsions and resignations from the party. Heated criticism was reportedly expressed at party meetings in Warsaw University, the Academy of Sciences, and the Writers Union.

59 See the discussion on the future of monolithic parties in the special issue of Government and Opposition, cited above, n. z. Cf. my book, The Governments of Communist East Europe, concluding chapter. See also Ionescu, International Conference of Futuribles (Paris, 1965) mimeo., where he speculated concerning the possible emergence of other parties, and of a more genuine parliamentarism, and a greater role in decision‐making by specialized bodies and associations. ‘An a‐political pluralism of the future could replace the political pluralism of the past’, he wrote (p. 17). See also Wjatr, J. J., ‘The Future of Political Institutions under Socialism’, at the Conference on Futuribles, 1965, mimeo., pp. 22–6.Google Scholar Cf. Brown, A. Pluralistic Trends in Czechoslovakia’, Soviet Studies, XVII, 4, 04 1966, 453–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Carl Beck, in the paper cited earlier, wrote that ‘the thrust of the discussion and of institutional reform has been toward a greater degree of participation by a variety of political actors and social forces in the entire political systems’ (sic) (p. 15).

60 The Politics of the European Communist States, pp. 80–5, 166–9, 190, 271–8. See above, n. 13 for lonescu's definition of these terms.

61 Ibid., pp. 5–10, 272.