The period of the United Unions lasted for about a century. The impact of the Union on other countries which were its members cannot be overestimated. In the different periods, the Union comprised from four to sixteen countries. Its territory occupied one-sixth of the Earth’s surface. After the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, its countries-members had different destinies. Some of them followed the examples of western European countries, while others took an absolutely different political and economical direction.
So, what are the reasons for such a striking difference between the development of all post-soviet countries? Why did Russia choose one way, while the Czech Republic moved in another direction? It is obvious that there are significant differences between all post-soviet countries, and there are logical reasons for such disparity. In order to examine the reason for such difference we would need to deal with different aspects of different countries: history, culture, the role of the Soviet Union, etc.
To begin with, it should be mentioned that “by the end of the communist period, all of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe faced profound economic crisis” (White, Batt, Lewis, and Seroka 6). Frankly speaking, such an aftereffect of the Dissolution of the Soviet Union for countries which were its members is not a surprise. Imagine the system which controls all aspects of economics. One day this system breaks, and there is no other sufficient one that could place the previous system. In other words, Europe, as well as members of the Soviet Union were not ready for separation. Of course, some of them had more facilities for rapid development, while others were dependant on the government of the dissolute country. Still, the approach of politicians of different post-soviet counties predetermined their development in this or that direction.
Romania is a post-soviet country which development and further history were predetermined by the fact of its membership in the Soviet Union. The political and economic situation in the country was closely connected with the notion of nationalism. Nicolae Ceausescu was a leader of Romania whose government is considered to have the most negative impact on the country. “From the beginning of the Ceausescu era, the new leadership injected an element of nationalism into its domestic and foreign politics” (Cheng 146). This ear can be described as the period of Romania’s economic stagnation. The thing is that the economic situation was the worst among the Soviet Union countries. Moreover, Ceausescu managed to create the most politically centralized government. Such a political approach could not but cause the economy: Ceausescu pursued rapid industrialization of the country. As a result, the level of industrial growth in Romania was the highest compared with other eastern European countries. “Unlike other Eastern European states, Romania continued to push for further heavy industrialization beyond the limits that could reasonably be expected and beyond the area of meaningful return” (Cheng 148). Besides industrialization other spheres of the economy were in a dangerous position: agriculture was absolutely neglected by the government. In the aspect of cultural development, the regime of Ceausescu Romania became very close to the Stalin Soviet Union. The leader was regardless of the negative consequences of the policy of total control. After the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, the direction of the country’s development changed greatly. The Romanian Revolution of 1989 became a turning point in the history of the country. Since 1996 peaceful democratic-liberal opposition was settled. Due to successful reforms, the country enjoyed rapid development of economics which allowed the country to become a part of the EU.
Unlike Romania, Hungary was the country in which the Soviet regime was milder. In fact, Hungary was a post-soviet country that got its independence almost without any obstacle. The thing is that “the imposition of Leninism in Hungary after World War II was not marked by swift and violent regime transition” (Cheng 170). In fact, communist power was gradually imposed on the country. Still, the imposition was rather partial. One of the most signs that communistic power was the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 against Soviet-imposed policies. For example, other post-countries did not show such an anti-soviet attitude. Perhaps, the successful destiny of Hungary after the Dissolution of the Soviet Union is connected with the political approach of the Kadar regime: “the Kadar regime based its rule on a dual compromise with the Soviet Union and the Hungarian population” (Cheng 199). The thing is that government actions were rather flexible for the population and of partial load mode. Moreover, Kadar applied the Soviet Model according to the living standards, cultural aspects, and economy of Hungary. In other words, the Kadar regime government used a rather specific political line which was beneficial both for the Hungarian people and their relationship with Soviet Russia. That is why it is understandable that the Hungarian political situation was an effective basis for the development of a newly independent country: the level of dependence of Hungary on the Soviet Union was of minimum significance. So, Hungary easily recovered from the Soviet government.
Russia, perhaps, was one of the countries whose contemporary existence is still very close to the period of the Soviet Union. First of all, Russia was the center of the Soviet Union. The revolution and further development of the communistic regime took place on the territory of Russia. At last, Russia was the home and starting point for the United Union. Another factor that influenced Russia after the Dissolution of the Soviet Union was the relationship with other countries after World War II. From the beginning of Soviet Russia was isolated from America, Western Europe, etc. At the same time, Poland, Hungary and other members of the Soviet Union maintain relations with Europe at least in this or that way. Do not forget that geographical location plays a great role in the economical, political, and cultural aspects of the development of a country. As for Soviet Russia, it was isolated for Europe not only in the political aspect but also in geographical one. Moreover, the fact that Russia occupied quite a huge territory meant that the popularization of new, after-soviet reforms spread too slowly.
Replacement of the old ideology is always a time-taking process. If in Hungary, Poland, Romania, etc, people were ready to adopt a democratic way of life, Russian people lived under the government of the Soviet Union for a longer time, and its ideas rooted themselves deeply in the minds of Russian people. However, the acceptance of democratic principles cannot be completely fulfilled without several substantial factors. Firstly, people of the country should fully understand the guidelines of the government policy and not only know, but also be aware of their civil rights. It is a rather complicated task on a national scale for such a big country as Russia. The second thing is the economic factor. Before people will take an active part in countries political life, they should know, that there are some workplaces available, and that their children have some food and clothe, and that the education is affordable enough, etc. The economy of the Soviet Union was not centralized. Plants, factories, mines and other enterprises were scattered all over the territory of the USSR. It was a great, inflexible system, which could not be reconstructed in a short time.
At the same time, a lot of economic resources were spent on the opposition of the USA and the USSR. Some researchers consider that even nowadays this face-off silently goes on:
Foreigners who study Russia are considered dangerous and enemies of Russia, as are Russians who have contacts with foreigners. Fear of the West once again pervades the mindset of Russian leaders.17 strong-armed tactics reminiscent of the Soviet-era KGB are still practiced today. (Wegren Herspring 296)
Brain drain is another problem that influences the current situation in Russia (Kouznetsova). Many competent experts leave Russia and go abroad in order to find better workplaces and living conditions. Low wages, an imperfect education system, the absence of governmental support for various scientific projects, and other factors force Russian citizens to seek a better life abroad. The latest economic crises naturally struck Russia, as well as other countries. Though European countries were more prepared for the problem. Of course, it was a break in her recovery from the post-soviet crisis.
All in all, obstacles in the economical development of post-soviet countries were predetermined by cultural, historical, political and other factors.
Works Cited
Cheng, Chen. The Prospects for Liberal Nationalism in the Post-Leninist States. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State Univ Pr (Trd), 2007. Print.
Kouznetsova, Tatyana. Brain Drain: Problem of Contract Migration in Russia. International scientific migrations. Web.
Wegren, Stephan K. et al. After Putin’s Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain, Fourth Edition. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009. Print.
White, Stephan et al. Developments in Central and East European Politics. Durham: Duke University Press Books, 2007. Print.