Jan Kubik Rutgers University Observations on communist and postcommunist citizenship I. Introduction 1 According to a standard encyclopedic definition: Citizenship refers to membership in a political community organized as a territorial or national state. The nature and content of citizenship varies with the form of state (Ritzer, ed. 2007). It varies, therefore, with the form of political regime. This variance can be usefully studied over the last 70 years or so in Eastern Europe. Since 1939, people in this part of the world have lived under at least five citizenship regimes: war and postwar regime(s) (1939 49) totalitarian regime(s) (1949 56) posttotalitarian regime(s) (1956 89) postcommunist regime(s) (1989 2004) (partially) transnationalized regime(s) (2004 present) (refers mostly to the new EU members) II. Basic definitions Citizenship is a form of membership, which is a type of relation. It has thus three components: Individual Institution (This is usually the state, but recently other, transnational institutions come to play as the postnationational citizenship emerges (Fox 2005, Sosyal 1994)) Relation itself Individual and institution in this relation are mutually constitutive. For example, Ruget and Usmanalieva argue in their analysis of the post 1991 Kyrgyzstan that, in a weak state, citizens are less likely to perform their duties, to trust the regime and to have a sense of loyalty towards their nation state. Although the article focuses on Kyrgyzstan, some of our observations may be valid for other weak states and, in particular, for post communist countries with comparable characteristics, such as Tajikistan (2007:443). 1 I wish to thank you Padraic Kenney for indispensable conversations that helped shape this intervention. Amy Linch and Alina Vamanu have provided a wonderful intellectual partnership through which my thoughts on the topic of citizenship have been formed. All shortcomings are, however, of my own doing.
Kubik, communist and postcommunist citizenship, page 2 The role or status of citizen does not exist prior to the establishment of the citizenship relationship. The process of establishing this relationship forms citizens out of individuals, but it also contributes to the formation of the complex institution, the state. An analysis of the emergence of the modern state is beyond the scope of this article; suffice it to note that it should not be treated as a fixed entity. As two noted students of postcommunist politics posit we need to depart from existing theory, which often treats states as consolidated outcomes and unitary actors, and instead highlight the processes by which states come into being and into action in the modern era (Grzymala Busse and Luong 2003:546). The relation between the individual and the state is multi stranded. It is best conceptualized as a complex bundle of links (Sassen 2006). The composition of the bundle changes over time and depends heavily on the regime type (Janoski 1998). Regime type determines not only the individual s relation with the state, but also other relations s/he has with, say, economic or civil society institutions (discussed below). Four basic distinctions help to study the nature of this bundle: Formal versus informal (Sassen 2006: 277 321; Verdery 1998). Formal elements of citizenship (forms of political participation, representations, legally established rights, etc.) are defined in the constitution and legal statutes. Informal in the cultural scenarios, performances, and practices generated and cultivated in the hegemonic, national culture and in various subcultures. Rights (what the institution should do) versus duties/obligations (what the individual should do). This is related to the distinction between citizenship as legal status versus citizenship as desired activity (Kymlicka and Norman 1994:353); Citizenship versus nationality. Relations between the individual and the state versus relations between the individual and the nation (Soysal 1994). Arguably, the most complex issue in postcommunism is the status of minorities and their citizenship (and nationality) rights (extensive debate on the status of Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia); Citizenship versus personhood. The construction of citizenship and personhood (dynamic product of self understanding and external categorization) are related but both are defined differently in different cultures. For example, gender and ethno national identity are going to be among the key dimensions of differentiating various types of citizens and persons. Most likely, women, members of minorities (ethnic, sexual) will be ascribed different if not diminished personhood related to truncated (at least in practice) citizenship. III. Citizenship and regime types. In this section I sketch some differences among the four regime types that can be easily identified in Eastern Europe since WWII. For the lack of space I will not discuss the wartime regimes.
Kubik, communist and postcommunist citizenship, page 3 The benchmark for this analysis is an idealized model of democratic architecture. Democratic polity is composed of five autonomous yet tightly linked domains (Graph 1): Domestic society (family, kinship networks) Civil society Political society (system of political parties) The state Economy The analysis of citizenship is augmented when we examine various subsets of relations linking these five domains. Consider for example the triad: citizen civil society the state. The quality of citizenship depends on the strength of civil society. When civil society is strong individuals have sufficient public space to fashion, protect, and change their relationship with the state. They can also defend themselves against the expansion of state s prerogatives (expansion of duties). Graph 1: democratic architecture Totalitarian regime A totalitarian regime is simpler (Graph 2). In its (idealized) architecture there is no room for: (1) the independent (market based) economic domain (command economy), (2) political society (party state), and (3) civil society. The party state that runs the economy faces only the domestic society (the domain of family and kinship). The bundle of citizenship is reduced to its bare bones: the state individual (embedded in kinship networks). Moreover, the relation is by and large unidirectional as individuals participation in defining their rights and duties is non existent or minimal (the original sin
Kubik, communist and postcommunist citizenship, page 4 of the communist pseudo citizenship). Additionally, the rule of law (a linchpin of citizenship) is subjected to arbitrary and changing whims of the authorities. Often it is de facto absent. Graph 2: totalitarian architecture Posttotalitarian regime(s) The distinction between totalitarian and posttotalitarian regime type (Linz and Stepan 1996) is crucial for any analysis of state socialist citizenship. After the 20 th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (February 1956), a gradual albeit arbitrary and uneven (in time and space) reconstruction of the system began. For the evolution of citizenship, three processes seem to be central: Humanization. The state and the political society did not liberalize (party state institutions were not abolished or decisively reformed): it became more humane. But the humanization was unevenly distributed: more advanced in Poland or Hungary, less so in the GDR, Romania, Czechoslovakia, or the Soviet Union. As a result, Poles recovered (in a limited manner) some prerogatives of citizenship (for example, a rationed right to travel outside of the Bloc) denied or severely restricted in other countries. Arbitrary and limited liberalization of civil society. In some countries (Poland, most prominently) some (closely monitored) civic associations were allowed to function. The Catholic Church (and to a degree other churches) enjoyed considerable (though monitored) autonomy. Eventually, Polish dissident civil society (most active in the region) exploded as the massive Solidarity movement (1980 81 and 1988 9).
Kubik, communist and postcommunist citizenship, page 5 Development of massive second (shadow) economies. A society broad engagement in second economies allowed people to deal with the systemic shortages generated by the official economy, but it also created a complex informal system of mutual dependencies, patron and client networks, that paradoxically led to the formation of considerable informal de facto empowerment of some categories of citizens. Graph 3: posttotalitarian architecture Postcommunist regime(s) The fall of state socialism (1989/1991) triggered transformations that have been complex, uneven, and plagued by reversals. After twenty years we see that: Post communism is diverse (as was state socialism). Three groups of countries have emerged: consolidated democracies, consolidated authoritarianisms, and semiauthoritarian (five years ago most were designated as semidemocratic) hybrids (Ekiert, Kubik, Vachudova 2005); The postcommunist space has produced both the leaders of what Huntington dubbed the third wave of democracy and its worst failures (authoritarian laggards). The former include today s members of the European Union, the latter the authoritarian regimes of Central Asia and Belarus (Graph 4).
Kubik, communist and postcommunist citizenship, page 6 Graph 4: Cross Regional Comparisons of Third Wave Democracies (Freedom House Index of Political and Civil Rights) Accordingly, there exist three basic types of citizenship regimes: democratic, authoritarian (Belarus), and semi authoritarian (say, in Russia). As for the set of four binaries sketched in the first section, the following basic observations can be made: The legally enshrined restoration of the formal elements of (democratic) citizenship has empowered individuals in many new ways, even in the authoritarian regimes. Formal dimensions of citizenship have been stabilized (constitutionally and legally) in the democratic countries, particularly those that joined the European Union. However, some legal debates and controversies continue, for example concerning dual citizenship (Liebich 2000). The ratio between the citizenship rights and duties has become considerably more balanced: the more democratic the regime, the more balanced the ratio. Tensions and often bloody conflicts between citizenship and nationality exploded all over the region. In some cases, they led to ethnic cleansing (the wars of Yugoslav succession), in others to prolonged and tangled debates concerning both the rights and practical treatment of the minorities. The most prominent cases include the Roma (in several countries) and the Russian speaking minorities, particularly in Latvia and Estonia. The relationship between citizenship and personhood emerged as a topic of debates, social protests, legal maneuvering, and political actions. Gender and sexual orientation have become particularly hotly contested. What is at stake is not just
Kubik, communist and postcommunist citizenship, page 7 equal (civic and political) rights, that are often de jure guaranteed, by the de facto social, cultural, and political discrimination that diminishes the quality of citizenship. Some postcommunist countries have (re)built and consolidated political systems close to the ideal of democratic architecture sketched above; some have not. For example, the weak state (low capacity state in) weakens citizenship, (Russia in the 1990s, Central Asia), but so does weak civil society. Even in the most thoroughly democratized postcommunist countries it is, by and large, diagnosed as weak (Howard 2003, Sissenich 2007) though there is some debate over this issue (Kubik 2005, Ekiert, Kubik 1999). Another important analysis is generated by the consideration of the citizen the state economy triad. Here, two areas are particularly relevant for citizenship: property rights and welfare state (as a specific redistributive mechanisms coordinated by the state). There is, for example, a considerable debate on the relationship between (private) property rights and the strength of citizenship. Anthropologists of postcommunism (Verdery and Humphrey, eds. 2004) show that as a result of complex legacies of state socialism a neat bipolar distinction between individual and collective rights (a foundation of the liberal concept of citizenship) is blurred in many parts of the postcommunist Eurasia. The hybrid property regimes, which emerged particularly in the countries/regions with previously collectivized agricultural systems, have strong and enduring implications for the characteristics of citizenship that becomes less clearly definable than in the more homogenous property regimes. In Marshall s seminal formulation, the provision of social rights belongs to the duties of the modern (welfare) state. State socialist welfare systems were as comprehensive as they were inefficient. Nonetheless, the universality of welfare benefits was/is often seen as the greatest achievement of state socialism. There exists a (erroneous) view that the fall of state socialism spelled the dramatic, across the board decline of welfare provisions in the region. But the existing empirical studies show that the scope and structure of redistributive policies vary tremendously. Somewhat counter intuitively, the more extensive and systematic neo liberal reforms correlate with higher levels of welfare protections (Haggard and Kaufman 2008:341 4). This has obvious repercussions for the quality of citizenship. Emergence of transnational regime(s) The accession of the ten former members of the Soviet Bloc to the European Union (in 2004 and 2007) and their earlier entry to the Council of Europe (all after 1989) initiated the process of transnationalization of both the state apparatuses and the citizenship regimes (Fox 2005). A multi layered (national and transnational) citizenship emerges as the states sovereignty is increasingly delegated to supra national bodies (EU, Council of Europe,
Kubik, communist and postcommunist citizenship, page 8 etc.). Citizens rights have been expanded considerably as individuals can (and often do) sue their governments (and their agencies) in the European Courts, including the European Court of Human Rights. For example, Polish citizens have become quite active. 2 Interestingly, the majority of complaints coming from the former Soviet bloc countries concern the inordinate length of proceedings in national courts. 3 Another process that dramatically impacts the post 1989 citizenship is labor migrations that produce large populations of often undocumented East European aliens in many West European countries. Bibliography Brubaker, Rogers. Citizenship Struggles in Soviet Successor States, International Migration Review 26:2 (1992), pp. 269 291. Ekiert, Grzegorz, Jan Kubik and Milada A. Vachudova. 2007. Democracy in the Post Communist World: an Unending Quest? East European Politics and Societies, 21 (1), pp. 7 30. Ekiert, Grzegorz and Jan Kubik. 1999. Rebellious Civil Society: Popular Protest and Democratic Consolidation in Poland, 1989 1993. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Fox, Jonathan. 2005. Unpacking Transnational Citizenship, Annual Review of Political Science 8:171 201. Grzymala Busse, Anna and Pauline Jones Luong. 2002. Reconceptualizing the State: Lessons from Post Communism. Politics and Society 30 4): 529 54. Haggard, Stephan and Robert R. Kaufman. 2008. Development, Democracy, and Welfare States. Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Howard, Marc M. 2003. The Weakness of Civil Society in Post Communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Janoski, Thomas. 1998. Citizenship and Civil Society. A Framework of Rights and Obligations in Liberal, Traditional, and Social Democratic Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2 More than half the judgments delivered by the Court between 1998 and 2008 concerned four of the Council of Europe s 47 member States: Turkey (1,857 judgments), Italy (1,789 judgments), France (613 judgments) and Poland (601 judgments). The European Court of Human Rights. Some Facts and Figures, 1998 2008, p. 5. 3 http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/en/header/the+court/introduction/information+documents/
Kubik, communist and postcommunist citizenship, page 9 Kubik, Jan. 2005. How to study civil society: the state of the art and what to do next, East European Politics and Societies, 19 (1), pp. 105 20. Kymlicka, Will and Wayne Norman. 2004. Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory, Ethics 104 (January): 352 81. Liebich, André. 2000. Plural Citizenship in Post Communist States, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 12, Issue 1 (January), pp. 97 107, 2000. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=916132 Linz, Juan and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and Post Communist Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Ritzer, George, ed. 2007. Citizenship, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 497 500. Ruget, Vanessa and Burul Usmanalieva. 2007. The Impact of State Weakness on Citizenship: a Case Study of Kyrgyzstan, Communist and Post Communist Studies 40 (2007) 441 58. Sassen, Saskia. 2006. Territory. Authority. Rights. From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Schmiter, Philippe C. and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. What Democracy is and is not, Journal of Democracy, Vol.2, No.3 (Summer), 75 87. Sissenich, Beate. 2005. Building States without Society. European Union Enlargement and the Transfer of EU Social Policy to Poland and Hungary. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Soysal, Yasmin N. 1994. Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Somers, Margaret R. 1993. Citizenship and the Place of the Public Sphere: Law, Community, and Political Culture in the Transition to Democracy, American Sociological Review, 58 (1): 587 620. Tilly, Charles. 1996. Citizenship, Identity and Social History, in Citizenship, Identity, and Social History, ed. Charles Tilly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verdery, Katherine. 1998. Transnationalism, nationalism, citizenship, and property: Eastern Europe since 1989, American Ethnologist 25(2), 291 306.
Kubik, communist and postcommunist citizenship, page 10 Verdery, Katherine and Caroline Humphrey, eds. 2004. Property in Question. Value Transformation in the Global Economy. Berg.