Transitions, some general thoughts

The Sixth Annual Lennart Meri conference, organised by the Estonian International Centre for Defence Studies, was held in Tallinn on 11-13 May. I was asked to speak at a session entitled “Stolen Promises? Learning from the Ukrainian and Egyptian Revolutions”. This is an edited text of my contribution.

The central objective of institution building must be to bring formal and informal institutions as close to each other as possible. This is much more difficult than appears at first sight, not least because the models – both explicit and implicit – are derived from the alien experience of Europe and US.

But if the gap between the formal and the informal is too great, then the formal institutions will not work as they are supposed to. They are very likely to be captured by informality and, in consequence, they will not generate trust. Crucially, the institutions that are supposed to mediate power between rulers and ruled will be deployed to the advantage of one group against others.

Closing this gap between the formal and informal is especially vital in the construction of legality and the rule of law.

Understanding the sociology of the society in question is essential, otherwise the solutions will not work well. Distinguishing between structural factors and contingent ones is also vital. The world is very diverse, so beware of the one-size fits all universalism.

Thus in societies that are based on extended family systems or patron-client networks or ethno-religious communities, Western-type citizenship concepts will be a façade. Those operating these systems will become adept at using the language that the West expects to hear, but matters will remain at the level of words. Note too that such concealment is well understood in the non-West. It is particularly misleading to refer to these phenomena as “sectarianism” or “nepotism”, because that conceals the sociological reality of the society in question, as well as importing an external normativity.

Design questions.

[1] Deal with the past rapidly, open all the secret police archives, the pain will not last more than a couple of years (GDR). Otherwise, the past will poison the political atmosphere. A lingering sense of injustice is corrosive.

[2] A caesura is very helpful, a revolution or a narrative of revolution is useful here (the Velvet Revolution in the Czech Republic is one example). A radical break between the past and the future can also help to marginalise the members of the ancien regime. If the carry-over from the past is too great, then this can be a serious brake on political development and carries with the dangers of some kind of a restoration.

[3] A citizenship concept should be formulated early on, not least as part of the new constitutional order. It should be inclusive, but not wholly open otherwise people will conclude that it’s not worth that much. If religion is a part of your society, then make it explicit, give it a formal role in the system. The secularised West finds this very difficult to understand.

[4] Crucially, start from the existing social structure and from ideology or aspirations or wish fulfilment fantasies. Do not accept unthinkingly what Western advisers tell you (read Janine Wedel’s book Collision and Collusion). The straightforward import of institutions is seldom successful anyway.

[5] Note that society’s expectations of change will intensify (rising expectations) and these cannot all be met. The lack of society’s political experience can mean expectations that are impossible to meet in practice; the result can be a kind of naïve cynicism.

[6] Do not neglect the symbols and rituals that sustain political systems (the West, with its mythic narrative of rationality does not really understand this). They are a way of including quite disparate groups.

[7] Equality and inequality. Once you reach a certain level of economic wellbeing, equivalence is a better goal. There will never a wholly equal distribution of power, but access to power, opportunity and status can remain open, even in plural societies, i.e. ethnically divided. The quest for full equality is dystopic and can legitimate authoritarian patterns of redistribution.

Sch. Gy.