Dear all, I wish to welcome
you in the name of one of the host organizations, the Hungarian Association for
Community Development.
The main question of the day is extremely important for us: does the civic
society have adequate answers to the current socio-economic crisis, and in case
it has, what are those answers.
In the nineties during the years of the transition, we sometimes ignorantly
thought that transition from socialism to capitalism would automatically offer
the possibility of democratization. This proved to be an illusion. In some cases
the only change took place in the frameworks of the dictatorships. Let’s just
think of Russia or China, but there probably are other examples, as well. The
strengthening of the capitalist elements has nothing to do with democratization.
That is, capitalism is not equal to democracy.
Referring to our great dreams, sociologist Elemér Hankiss in one of his papers
says that in the nineties we wanted to live free, in the first decade of the new
century we wanted to live well, and now we only want to live on (to survive).
One of the peculiarities of the present situation – especially from a Middle
Eastern European point of view – is that the crisis of the democracy and the
search for the adequate answers started from the old, stable democracies:
we can either think of the movements having begun in Spain or the US and the
Wall Street events.
In relation to the crisis phenomena, Hungarian sociologist Ferenc Miszlivetz
stresses that the narrow path still accessible for the prime ministers and
presidents of the nation states offers very few possibilities of maneuvering,
and our current life is a lot more influenced by the big global market
stakeholders, the international institutions of financial control and the media
empires.
We know, and as an economic fact we also teach, that there is nothing like „lunch
for free”. Each type of support means the acquisition of – sometimes delayed –
influence. Today one of the new challenges faced by the democracies (and here
I’m citing Ferenc Miszlivetz again) „arrives from the caring international and
economic institutions” (like the IMF, the World Bank or the European Central
Bank). The new democracies usually possessing weak and exposed economies and
positions – this is what the post-communist countries are – are especially likely
to become ‘no choice’ democracies.
These caring institutions, intentionally or not, prioritize the democracy notions
accepted by them – that means that (by choosing their partners or structuring
the dialogues) they alter the socio-political context to a great extent, and
influence the process of democratizing the democracy. In this (competitive)
process the role played by the civic society is being radically reduced.
In Hungary, we experience, amongst other phenomena, the radical
impoverishment of the communities and the NGOs. In addition, it is not only that
we have had less money during the previous two years, but the political decision
makers have been replaced, and the vision of the state concerning its role to
be played – and the role players – in its relation to the civic society has
considerably changed. This double process has happened so fast that we have
had no chance to adapt.
It is obvious that we cannot avoid turning into a direction decreasing our
dependence on the government which has been too strong so far.
It is not easy to find new and more independent financial (and other) resources
and build a new system based on these in an economy and society being
impoverished.
However, the extreme disappointment of the public towards the political and
ruling sector and the degradation of public trust on one side, and the creativity
of the civic society, the strengthening of the networks and many other new
phenomena on the other, may lead to a new situation. Perhaps we will know more
of that by the end of this summer university.
I wish you to meet exciting experiences, and to do a good job.
Ferenc Péterfi