Let's expel Poland from the EU!

[Verbose]

The really scary thing is that the "evil twins" have a real chance of winning the nest elections and remaining in power. The collapse of civilization in most of the former soviet block is now producing its results also in Poland.

Those insane politicians (dozens of parliamentarians recently tried to have Jesus Christ appointed as king of Poland) mirror what has happened in Russia. Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic dwarfs, Serbia,
they all lacked a real democratic tradition (and many even a national identity) prior to their inclusion into the soviet block. Once the soviet-style regimes fell they went through a period of ideological vacuum (just as Russia did). Some of the members of the former ruling elite recycled themselves and took over both power and wealth. A few years later they had dismantled much of the economy and society without really creating anything to replace it with. The field was then open for those appealing to pre-communist ideas - which in central european states were forms of fascism or, more accurately, authoritarianism.

So, why isn't Russia on that list? It's more deserving in all departments listed.

Whatever troubles they're experiencing, Russia has the same, in spades.

 

[Princeps]

they all lacked a real democratic tradition prior to their inclusion into the soviet block

No nation can lack democratic abilities, I think. It is a simple system, it comes automatically to decent people and it's not hard to understand, but it's usually the people in power who lack respect for such and think it is "politically unfeasable" or something.

 

[innonimatu]

So, why isn't Russia on that list? It's more deserving in all departments listed.

Whatever troubles they're experiencing, Russia has the same, in spades.

Read my post again - that was exactly what I argued, as I compared the Kaczynski with Putin. Russia is not on the list simply because it's not part of the EU, and I was discussing EU member states.

1) There could hardly be a collapse of civilization after the fall of Communism, because that would necessarily imply that there had been a civilization before. Communist dictatorships cannot be called a civilization. The only thing they did was that they kept order for some time. Otherwise, they completely ruined the countries.

I disagree. They took over mostly agrarian societies and brought them through the industrialism stage - something that had also happened in Western Europe and Japan even before WW2, and would happen under authoritarian regimes in Taiwan, South Korea and other countries. Most of Central Europe did improve during the soviet period, but it had stagnated by the end of the 1970s. Some western european countries also went through rapid modernization only well into the 20th century in a process similar to that of Taiwan or South Korea.

2) Some of the countries lacked a democratic tradition, that's true. Except Czechoslovakia, none of them had a stable liberal democracy for any reasonable period of time before WW2. On the other hand, this doesn't in any way means that they can't evolve into a true, modern democracy. Finland, Spain, Portugal or Greece hadn't any real democratic experience either, but they easily transformed into a democracy after their authoritatian governments collapsed.

Oh, not easily, not easily at all. Finland had to toe a dangerous line ever since its independence until the 1950s. It did manage to avoid major trouble, but things could easily have gone much worst.
Spain went through a civil war in the 20th century, and that was a continuation of at least 3 other civil wars in the previous century, all caused by the transformation of the country from a traditional, isolated monarchy into a modern state. The only easy thing was the replacement of Franco in 1975, but by then the authoritarian factions that might have clung to power knew times had changed and they had to change with them, if (stealing a quote from Lampedsa) they wanted things to remain the same.
Portugal had a very unstable first republic, with almost yearly coups and very corrupt groups passing off as political parties, and apart from the civil war in the 20th century it pretty much mirrored what had happened in Spain, if at different times. It had its own delusions of sovereignty and national independence well into the 20th century, fighting a 12 year colonial war, staying out of the EU, and keeping an outdated political regime, until 1974. Only by the late 1960s did the ruling elites began to understand sovereignty had become too costly to keep, and it still took a revolution to remove those at the top and change things.
Greece had its own civil war, several political regimes, and finally a dictatorship, before it managed to build a stable democratic system.

Finally, political changes in Greece, Portugal, and Spain were only consolidated because of two things. First, local elites understood they could not keep their countries isolated any longer. Second, the EEC provided a ready alternative for that, one that required liberal democracy as the political regime of these countries (that's what really appeals to most pro-EU people in Turkey, by the way).

In Central Europe the present elites appear to be dangerously deluded that they could keep their countries independent and run them as they please.

As you can see, the Baltic states are doing extremely well, Hungary, the Czech Rep. and now even Slovakia too, with Balkan countries stabilizing. Poland is nothing really exceptional (yes, they're annoying sometimes). You attribute everything bad to some sort of an inherent Central and Eastern European inability to live in a democracy (which itself is a borderline racist opinion), while you tacitly ignore, that Western European countries had such problems too (Haider in Austria, far-right parties in the Low Countries and Italy etc.).

No, I didn't ever claim that Central Europe couldn't have liberal-style democracies. I simply think that change takes time, and can be easily derailed from that possible outcome.The weight of history can be heavy. Haider and Berlusconi and just con artists, they won't ever succeed pushing a real fascist-like agenda, they'd be fighting against deeply rooted ideas - let's call those myths.
But those ideas have no deep roots in Central Europe, the field is still open for the creation of new political myths there, after the vacuum caused by the destruction of communist ideology. There the likes of the Kaczynski (or Putin for that matter) have a fair chance of succeeding. It's not about race, obviously , it's about recent local history and how that shapes politics.

The difference is that CE and EE countries had to face a completely wrecked economies, social inbalances, poverty, rise of nationalism and so on, which have made these problems somewhat worse.

Wrecked economies, social imbalances and poverty were all worsened by the way how the previous regime was torn down suddenly. But they're not the real dangers, only catalysts. The real danger is the ideological vacuum, as the propaganda that had shaped people's lives for decades suddenly ceased without anything clear being offered to replace it. That's what left the field open for nationalism and authoritarianism. They're competing with liberal democracy to become the new political myths there. That the politicians who should have promoted liberal democracy have been the ones dismantling the old communist welfare state without replacing it with a social-democrat version (the western european approach, not that different really) only helped the rise of authoritarian nationalism.
And this also applies to Russia and the other soviet republics, of course.

Historically the provision of some kind of welfare by the state has always been a popular demand. Roosevelt's New Deal in the USA, several social-democrat schemes in Western Europe, the communist state property approach in the soviet block... and the state-coordinated social programs in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, all sought to satiate those demands. The current fashion preached from Washington and (to a lesser degree) London and Brussels is very near laissez-faire economics, but the real behavior of these governments at home is maintaining many welfare schemes - because they are necessary to keep people contented.

In most Central European countries everything associated with communist has been damned, and by extension also western-style social-democratic welfare - all had to go, because all was associated with the hated occupier of the past half century. But that left only fascist-style statism (nationalism) as the only form of welfare state possible - and nationalist parties have capitalized on that.

3) If Russians know what they're doing, then Poland knows that too. Of course you're wrong. Russia tries to do what it is used to do - expand into Europe. Collapse of its empire in 1991 is seen as a tragedy in Russia, so they're trying to regain their influence.

Russia has a strategy: to prevent the formation of a coherent political block on its immediate western border. That means undermining the EU by supporting national sovereignty and dealing directly with national governments.

Poland's strategy should be the opposite: neither Poland nor any other Central European country has the capability to stand by itself in the international stage. They're too small. The people running the Western European countries, even the UK, eventually understood that, the central europeans are reluctant to admit it.

But there is one peculiarity about the Russian nationalism - it has always been the bad form of nationalism - it is chauvinism, "Russia first, Russia über alles" type. Nothing close to the liberal form of nationalism which formed the European nation states (no, I am not trying to say that Europe didn't suffer of this "bad" nationalism too). Russians believe that for the sake of the Motherland, they were given a right to conquer and subjugate the weaker nations in their neighborhood. Just look at their history, perhaps then you'll understand why is it not acceptable for the Central and Eastern European nations.

That's all there is to nationalism as a political ideology. It came about and spread after the french revolution, an the french, under the cover of liberte, fraternite, equalite, were then practicing just the nationalism you describe. Like the american now, under the cover of freedom.

Given the immensely (and for an average Western European probably incomprehensibly) negative experience with the Russian nationalism that almost every post-communist country has, it is no wonder they tend to react strongly on the signs that the beast is wakening again. And yes, they expect a support from the Western Europe, which has let them down many times. Maybe now is the right time to make things right and support those who know what they're talking about.

Western Europe won't support central europenan states if they go for the nationalist route - and that is where Poland is going. If they wand to act as if they can have their own foreign policy apart from the rest of the EU, and make their own rules and moral-inspired laws ignoring the rest of the EU, they they will have to fare for themselves. And the EU will play with them just as Russia does. They will again become pawns for both sides.
This would be the worst scenario, and a very unlikely one in my opinion. I don't think Russia is bent on conquest like you believe. They just want to divide what they see as their possible opponents - I guess some of them may be imagining beasts of their own to fear.

 

[Verbose]

Read my post again - that was exactly what I argued, as I compared the Kaczynski with Putin. Russia is not on the list simply because it's not part of the EU, and I was discussing EU member states.

Fair enough.

Western Europe won't support central europenan states if they go for the nationalist route - and that is where Poland is going. If they wand to act as if they can have their own foreign policy apart from the rest of the EU, and make their own rules and moral-inspired laws ignoring the rest of the EU, they they will have to fare for themselves. And the EU will play with them just as Russia does. They will again become pawns for both sides.

So how do you mean the EU is run here? Apparently you don't think membership brings these nations any real influence on EU policis?

But you're right that local nationalist policies aren't acceptable in the EU. It's pretty strict about that, since it led to two world wars, of which at least the second really laid eastern Europe under the hammer. It's part of the "founding principles" of the European Union.

Kind of daft to go for nationalist politics AND try to retain a membership in something like he European Union. One or the other hardly seems unreasonable.

 

[klazlo]

Great analysis innonimatu. I totally agree.

(...)

In my opinion it was way to soon for 95% of the Eastern-European countries to join. A partnership of some kind would've been better.

Innonimatu was indeed very right.

On your end comment: it was soon, yes, but partly because WE was largely unprepared too, they never had a good vision on how to integrate EE, but for political reasons they promised EU membership in the early 90s. I lived in EE at that time, and remember people (and governments) were upset in 95 when EE was not even considered to join and WE politicians refused to name an actual accession date.
Again, EE was unprepared for accession and is unprepared now for membership responsibilities. The lack of democratic politics is the one that hinders EE the most (and don't start on how democratic the Czechs were in the interwar period, that is grossly overinflated).
Anyway, the point is that the membership related troubles of EE are largely a function of the troubles of the EU structure (determined by WE) or more precisely the political games WE politicians play with EE. This latter is not new though, just pick a random historical period in the past 400 years.

 

[klazlo]

Fair enough.

But you're right that local nationalist policies aren't acceptable in the EU. It's pretty strict about that, since it led to two world wars, of which at least the second really laid eastern Europe under the hammer. It's part of the "founding principles" of the European Union.

Kind of daft to go for nationalist politics AND try to retain a membership in something like he European Union. One or the other hardly seems unreasonable.

Well, nationalist political parties are considered non-EU conform, but nationalism is still in the EU operational mode. I haven't seen EU countries giving up fiscal aid, backdoor support or national political agendas for the sake of other EU countries.

 

[warpus]

God yes.

Not a sound comes out of Poland without me thinking "Lord what have we let ourselves in for?!" I can completely understand the level of Polish emigration...

You can?

It's a purely economical phenomenon.

 

[JZ_UK]

You can?

It's a purely economical phenomenon.

Except when you look at the number of Eastern European women who say they're staying in Western Europe, while most male Eastern Europeans are keen to return home after making some Western Euros/Sterling... it was in a beeb article somewhere... I think it was single men and women, it wasn't as if they'd exercised the right of free movement to marry straight away...

 

[innonimatu]

So how do you mean the EU is run here? Apparently you don't think membership brings these nations any real influence on EU policis?

But you're right that local nationalist policies aren't acceptable in the EU.

Well, I think you got what I meant. Membership does bring influence, but some things are not negotiable - joining the EU by definition requires ceasing all outright nationalist policies. Protecting the local economy and local habits is of course acceptable (and something to be expected), but must be done diplomatically (quietly, without making a public issue of it) and requires giving in when the matter is not really vital and a member state is isolated, or making concessions to get concessions.

When member states start being run by political parties with nationalist programs things quickly go downhill, because these parties cannot really negotiate (make concessions) without losing support and power at home. They have to make outrageous demands and block negotiations in order to keep the support of their own base. And they must work to extend that base - convert more people to nationalistic views.

 

[willemvanoranje]

When member states start being run by political parties with nationalist programs things quickly go downhill, because these parties cannot really negotiate (make concessions) without losing support and power at home. They have to make outrageous demands and block negotiations in order to keep the support of their own base. And they must work to extend that base - convert more people to nationalistic views.

Although the situation is not exactly the same, I would like us all to look back at Germany 1871-1914. The coalition of steel and rhye made by the ruling elite to stay in power, was thriving on nationalism as well. As innonimatu describes, it gets harder and harder to prove that you are a nationalist if you do not also intensify your policies. At one point the Germans could not do anything else than head for international conflict, because backing down would have killed their credibility and might have put them out of power. Nationalism can be a great tool for elites to stay in power in democratising states, but it is a tool that's hard to control. It goes on to lead its own life, and before you know it you are either in a war, or out of power.