Ten years have passed since the collapse of the Czechoslovak Federal Republic. Now, after so many years, we can safely say that the separation was a successful political step. In any case, the presidents of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Vaclav Havel and Rudolf Schuster, think so. January 1, 1993 for Slovakia and the Czech Republic was one of the most important dates in their history. 10 years ago, the Czechoslovak Federal Republic ceased to exist, and the peoples of the Czech Republic and Slovakia chose the path of independent development.
The collapse of Czechoslovakia in 1992 will go down in history as an example of the peaceful division of the state without bloodshed, ethnic conflicts and international tension. At that time, the formation of a new state was often accompanied by military conflicts.
The Slovak Republic appeared on the political map of Europe on January 1, 1993. Let us listen to the opinions of those who were directly involved in the process of division of Czechoslovakia and in the formation of an independent Slovak state. The former chairman of the Federal Assembly, and later the first president of the SR, Michal Kovacs, believes that the deputies of the federal assembly played a decisive role in the division of Czechoslovakia, and not the leaders of the two most powerful political entities of the Czech UDF and the Slovak HZDS at that time - Vaclav Klaus and Vladimir Meciar, who before this historical act is still attributed to this day. The political will to divide the state, according to Kovacs, could only be realized in the Federal Assembly. And the deputies who voted for the division of the CSFR, in the opinion of the first president of the SR, deserve high state awards. When asked how the Slovak politicians felt then, Michal Kovac replied:
- In addition to feeling joy, happiness from the fact that we managed to agree with the Czech partners on the division of the federation and the creation of two independent states, we had a sense of responsibility and duty for the fate of our people.
Not everyone in Slovakia welcomed the division of the Czechoslovak federation. Michal Kovacs, being the chairman of the Federal Assembly at that time, assessed the current situation as follows:
- Of course, I understood that the Slovak society was divided into at least two parts in terms of the political spectrum. Some declared that Slovakia should acquire sovereignty, others believed that it was too early to talk about the independent development of Slovakia and demanded that the common state of Czechs and Slovaks be preserved on a federal basis.
The division of the Czechoslovak Federal Republic, according to the former chairman of the National Council of the SR Ivan Gasparovic, was not easy, but it was a very important step, which later determined the place of the Slovaks in Europe.
- It is impossible to say unequivocally that the separation was inevitable, - says Ivan Gashparovich. In Slovakia, there was an opinion that we should do everything possible to free ourselves from the administrative and economic dependence of the Czechs: almost all key positions in the Czechoslovakia, including in representative offices abroad, were occupied by citizens of Czech nationality. At that time, we wanted to create a single supreme body of the federation, which would carry out foreign policy tasks, including the defense of the common Czech-Slovak state. As for economic relations, in our opinion, each of the republics had to build them independently. But the Czech side did not accept this proposal. At the last meeting in Bratislava, former CSFR Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus said that Czechoslovakia should be a unitary state, and if not, then let two independent republics emerge. His words subsequently led to the collapse of the Czecho-Slovak Federation. But in Europe and around the world, this decision was treated with understanding.
Great merit in the division of the Czechoslovak Federation belongs to the leader of the HZDS - the Movement for Democratic Slovakia, Vladimir Meciar. How he saw this problem from his position. “We already have our own state, what next? - I received such a question most often in 93. I have always been convinced that the division of Czechoslovakia will take place peacefully. I categorically refuted the claims of some Western politicians that by separating from the Czechs, I want to free the Slovaks from their hegemony and return a totalitarian regime to Slovakia. But it wasn't. I have always believed that Slovakia is worthy of independent development and prosperity, and that it is an integral part of Europe, and therefore in 1992 I withdrew from the Federation and declared its independence. As for holding a referendum on the division of Czechoslovakia, I have never been against it. People have the right, given to them by the Constitution, to speak out on this matter. But everything was decided on the basis of political agreements.”
In both Slovakia and the Czech Republic, there is an opinion that the question of the division of the state should have been decided not by politicians, but by citizens in a national referendum, and that the collapse of the CSFR did not benefit either side. Is it true? Here is what the current President of the SR Rudolf Schuster says about this:
President Schuster, in his speech on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the formation of an independent SR, said that interaction with our Czech neighbor is of particular importance to us, because we are connected with Prague by a great historical era.
- It must be admitted that Prague was the place where the Warsaw Pact was cancelled. Vaclav Havel came up with this initiative. We must not forget that at one time he was our president within the framework of the CSFR. It is also symbolic that 10 years later, after the division of Czechoslovakia, not anywhere, namely in Prague at the NATO summit, the SR was invited to the North Atlantic Alliance.
Looking back, it must be admitted that there were different periods in Czech-Slovak relations. Not without reproaches and mutual claims in the process of division of property and powers. Our countries also survived the small "ice" period, when the tone at official meetings was very dry and cold, and cooperation at all levels left much to be desired. But let's hope that this is irrevocably a thing of the past. The time is not far off when the Czech Republic and Slovakia will be part of a large European family, the security of which will be guaranteed by NATO.
Before turning to the collapse of Czechoslovakia, let us turn to the history of the formation of two states. By the beginning of World War I, Czech and Slovak politicians had a fairly clear concept of the future state of the Czechs and Slovaks. This idea was proposed to the Russian Tsar at the beginning of the war and he approved the creation of the Czechoslovak legions. On the Czech side, the main representatives were Tomas Masaryk and Eduard Benes, and on the Slovak side, Milan Stefanik. In 1915, Masaryk officially presented the plan for the creation of Czechoslovakia in Geneva. In October of the same year, emigrant organizations of Czechs and Slovaks in Cleveland signed a joint declaration. The final agreement was signed on May 31, 1918 in Pittsburgh. The first provisional government met in Paris. On October 28, 1918, the Czech National Council proclaimed independent Czechoslovakia, and on October 30, the Slovak National Council in Turchanski Sveti Martin (modern Martin) announced the separation of Slovakia from Hungary and the creation of the Czechoslovak state (the so-called Martin Declaration). On November 14, 1918, Tomas Masaryk became President of the Czech Slovak Republic. The joint state was recreated on the basis of the unification of the two peoples after ten centuries of separation, but the question of a clear relationship between them remained open. In the constitutional debate, the centralist tendency won the victory, gaining the support of the majority of Czechs. Czechoslovakia was proclaimed a single and indivisible republic. The idea of a single nation using a common language found support both in Prague and among part of the Slovak population. And yet, the centralist nature of the new republic did not suit many citizens of Slovakia, primarily supporters of the People's Party of Glinka, as well as Josef Tiso, who demanded full autonomy for this part of the country and received 32% of the Slovak vote in the 1925 elections. Some of the votes in Slovakia also received more moderate parties opposed to autonomy. Catholics played a leading role in more extremist movements. As a result, the Slovak question became the central issue of the new state, and the antagonism and tension between Czechs and Slovaks often overshadowed the real achievements in the development of Slovakia. Some of its more moderate leaders held high positions in the Czechoslovak government. In 1935, President Masaryk resigned and was replaced by Edvard Beneš. On September 28, 1938, the Munich Agreement of 1938 was signed in Munich, according to which the Sudetenland was transferred to Germany, and the Teszyn region to Poland. In 1938, after the Munich Agreement, many Slovaks from among the extremist wing of the autonomists came forward with demands for complete separation from the Czechoslovak state. As a result of this agreement, the line for the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia prevailed; Hungary and Poland annexed parts of the territory of Slovakia. On October 6, 1938, Slovak politicians in Žilina proclaimed the autonomy of Slovakia within Czechoslovakia. The government was forced to approve this and appointed Josef Tiso as prime minister of the autonomous government. On November 2, 1938, as a result of the Vienna Arbitration, Hungary and the Third Reich torn away its southern part from Slovakia. On March 13, 1939, Hitler, at a meeting with Tiso, suggested that he declare the independence of Slovakia, otherwise Slovakia would have been divided between Poland and Hungary. On March 14, 1939, the First Slovak Republic was proclaimed, and the next day German troops occupied the Czech Republic, Moravia and Czech Silesia. The so-called "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" was proclaimed, which was "Ruled" by Emil Hacha. On September 21, 1944, the Red Army crossed the border of Czechoslovakia at Medzilaborets. On January 19, 1945, Bratislava was liberated - the First Slovak Republic fell, and on May 9, Prague was liberated. In 1946, the first elections were held. In Slovakia they were won by the Democratic Party, in the Czech Republic by the Communist Party. In February 1948, a political crisis erupted, democratic ministers resigned, President Benes, under pressure from communist demonstrations, created a government dominated by communists. On May 9, 1948, a constitution was adopted and after the death of Benes, Klement Gottwald became president, under which it became a socialist state. On January 1, 1969, after the law on federalization, the Czech Republic became a federal republic within Czechoslovakia, which was called the Czech Socialist Republic.
The enormous achievements of Czechoslovak socialism in 1969 - 1989, compared with the current recession, the so-called normalization that lasted more than 20 years, led to a huge upsurge in science, economics, politics, ideology, culture and social life. Without the slightest hesitation, we can safely say that it was in 1969 - 1989 The Czechoslovak Soviet Socialist Republic has achieved the greatest success throughout its history. Let me give you one example as an example. In 1989, the gross domestic product (GDP) in the former Czechoslovakia was almost $9,000 per capita, while today it is less than $3,000, or, in other words, Czechoslovakia 16 years ago won 11th place in the world, among all, including including highly developed industrial countries. Today it’s not even worth talking about it, one laugh through tears - somewhere in 80th place. Until November 1989, Czechoslovakia's debt was the smallest among all the countries of the socialist camp (except for Romania, which had no debts) - $ 2.5 billion (Hungary - $ 10 billion, Poland - $ 40 billion). It was about the whole of Czechoslovakia, the current debt of the Czech Republic alone is almost 50 billion dollars. The Czech industry, which was the pride of the country, is finally dying. After the coup, one million jobs were lost in the Czech Republic alone. The line between the standard of living of the rural population and the urban population was erased word for word under the communists. Agriculture carried out the food plan of the motherland as a whole so successfully that even 10 years after the coup, the French rated Czechoslovak socialist agriculture as the most developed in all of Europe. In view of the advent of Gorbachev's perestroika in the USSR, the socialist path of development in Czechoslovakia ended with the events of November 1989, when the ruling nomenklatura was unable to withstand the growing pressure of pro-capitalist forces in the absence of external support and ceded power to them almost without a fight. Many young party workers, in exchange for the opportunity to participate in the privatization of part of the public property and remain in the political and economic "elite" of the country, have committed a shameful betrayal of their own conscience. Formally, this was expressed in their participation in the so-called "transitional coalition government" (December 1989 - May 1990), which launched all the major liberal market reforms. Nevertheless, the return of the capitalist order could not but bring to life and political activity representatives of truly Marxist forces, who survived both in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and outside it. Already at the emergency congress in December 1989, despite the enormous pressure of the bourgeois reaction and the panic moods of part of the party activists, the proposal to dissolve the party was rejected. The 18th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia determined the tactics of the party's work in the new political conditions (preparation for parliamentary and local elections, "gaining positions" in the trade unions, the struggle against the "return" of property to the former owners and against the liquidation of agricultural cooperatives, the struggle against the monopoly of the authorities and new owners in the mass media information, etc.) and immediate organizational tasks (transfer of party organizations from enterprises and institutions to "territories" at the place of residence, the creation of new forms of primary organizations on a professional and functional basis and interests, the formation of a "Union of Young Communists", material support political activities, etc.). In the same 1990, based on the objective processes of the weakening of the Czechoslovak federation, from a surge of bourgeois nationalism (primarily Slovak), which led to the division of the country into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993, the Communist Party of the Czech Republic and Moravia (CPCM) was created. Moravia, this is the eastern third of the Czech Republic, the name follows from the river of the same name and flowing into the Danube River, which included party organizations that worked in the Czech lands. Despite the constant pressure of the bourgeois parties, the media (media), the state apparatus. The KSCM is now the largest political party in the Czech Republic, consistently receiving in any election since 1990, its 15, and recently nearly 19 percent of the vote. The CPCM is the only parliamentary party that defends the interests of working people and opposes the country's involvement in NATO and "European structures". In Slovakia, there is a legal successor of the KPS (Chairman Josef Shevc). Its political development, ideology and practice are in many ways similar to the KSCM, and the methods of combating the left, which the bourgeoisie resorts to in these two countries, are also similar. It is clear that in modern conditions, administrative and political pressure, and the constant appearance in the media are an integral part of the struggle of the right against the Czech and Slovak communists. At this point, we should mention a certain "strangeness" on the Czech political scene, this is the creation with subsequent state registration of an organization - a double, which is a "caricature of communism", as many people, not only right-wing opponents, often say with a claim to wit about this double. We are talking about the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (the name, the order of congresses and the organizational structure still correspond to the Communist Party before the coup - the current general secretary is Miroslav, whose membership base consists mainly of former "normalizers" - Gottwalders who were expelled from the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia back in 1989-1990 Demonstrations in November 1989 put an end to communist rule. In the Czech Republic, the Civic Forum (CF) movement arose, and in Slovakia the Public Against Violence (OPN) movement. The country received a new name - the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. In the 1990 elections, the OPN and the Christian Democratic On December 29, 1989, opposition leader V. Havel became the new president of Czechoslovakia, and even many communists voted for him. Forum of the Czech Republic and "Public Against Violence" in Slovakia. It is noteworthy, however, that quite a few The party also received votes, noticeably renewed after being expelled from no more than 20 former leaders. The rest of the parties (the Christian Democratic Union, the Socialist Party, the Slovak National Party and the Movement for Self-Managed Democracy) were defeated and practically did not take part, firstly, in socio-economic and socio-political reforms. At the end of 1990, the federal parliament granted Slovakia the right dispose of its budget without resolving the issue of guarantees of its sovereignty. In 1991, federal, Czech and Slovak government circles held a series of meetings that discussed the issue of granting autonomy to Slovakia, but no agreement was reached. The OPN movement split, in particular on the issue of separatism, and in the 1992 elections a new organization of patriotic forces - the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (DZDS, founded in 1991) - won a majority of seats in the Slovak legislature. In June 1992, the leaders of the federal, Czech and Slovak governments came to an agreement on the peaceful division of Czechoslovakia. On January 1, 1993, two independent states arose: the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. The next stage of serious political and economic reforms began in Czechoslovakia only more than two decades after the defeat of the Prague Spring. The new government presented the program of economic reforms to the parliament by September 1990, that is, almost immediately after its formation. And from January 1991, that is, literally four months later, the implementation of this program began. It should be noted that in Czechoslovakia, as in any other country undergoing reforms, there was a discussion between supporters of rapid reforms and those who preferred gradualism. The most prominent representative of the first approach was Finance Minister Vaclav Klaus. By the time the reforms began, he had reached the age of fifty. This was a reformer of a completely different wave than those who stood at the head of the state during the Prague Spring. If O. Shik first visited the country of developed capitalism at a mature age, being already one of the leaders, then Klaus underwent a scientific internship in Italy at the age of twenty-five, when he was writing his PhD thesis. After the defense, an internship in the United States of America. Despite the fact that Klaus was directly involved in the events of the Prague Spring and was even fired from the Institute of Economics in 1970 for his reformist views, his approaches to reform turned out to be completely different from those of Schick. If Schick became famous, among other things, for his search for a third way that does not coincide with either capitalism or socialism, then Klaus became largely known for his catchphrase: "The third way is the way to the third world." He sought to put an end to socialism and make Czechoslovakia an exemplary, effectively functioning capitalist country. Klaus, in his reform activities, openly focused on the rigidity characteristic of Thatcherism, and tried in every possible way to emphasize his country's belonging to the Western world, which is dominated by the market. Klaus became Minister of Finance at the end of 1989, that is, immediately after the Velvet Revolution. Already at that time, he was one of the leading figures in the Civil Forum, which united the democratic forces of Czechoslovakia. The main opponent of Klaus was the director of the Institute for Economic Forecasting, Walter Komarek, who took the post of deputy prime minister in the first post-communist government. Under Komarek's leadership, the Institute for Forecasting prepared a paper proposing the concept of gradual entry into the market while maintaining state regulation. Komarek strongly protested against shock therapy and took positions characteristic of the left of the center, for social democracy. In this political struggle, a clear victory for V. Klaus. If two decades earlier Czechoslovakia was the pioneer of reforms, now in Prague they were almost completely guided by the approaches that were used in Warsaw a year earlier. True, the position of Czechoslovakia differed in many important respects from the position in which Poland found itself, which determined the tactical difference between the reforms. In the first half of the 1990s. Unemployment in the Czech Republic was about three times lower than in Hungary and four times lower than in Poland. On the one hand, it seemed to be good. However, on the other hand, the problem of the transition economy was largely determined by the reasons for such a high level of employment. After all, the Czech Republic managed to maintain employment without going through a structural transformation. In January 1991, almost all elements of the Polish strategy of shock therapy were applied in Czechoslovakia, although some of them were clearly softened. Interestingly, the government not only did not try to gloss over the rigidity of its approach, but, on the contrary, actively emphasized the fact that it was precisely shock therapy that it carried out. So it is carried out as follows: First, there was a liberalization of prices. Probably, the pace of it was in Czechoslovakia the highest among all the countries of the region. Secondly, the Czechoslovak authorities tried to apply a tight financial policy in order to prevent the development of inflation. However, as observers noted, the implementation of the declared shock therapy program in Czechoslovakia was less painful than in any other country in Central and Eastern Europe. Thirdly, after a significant devaluation of the kroon, its internal convertibility was ensured. The krone was fixed and tied to a basket of currencies. The use of the Polish reform scenario made the results of the Czechoslovak reforms largely similar to the Polish ones. The reformers expected GDP to fall by 5% in the first year. In practice, the reduction in production was huge. GDP fell by 15% in a year. The decline continued next year and amounted to 6.4%. In 1993, in the Czech Republic, it was practically overcome (a drop of less than 1%), while in Slovakia it was still noticed. Czechoslovak economists naturally wondered if this decline could have been less significant if the reforms had followed a gradualist scenario. K. Kouba compared the Hungarian and Czechoslovak reforms. He noted that if the volume of industrial production in each of these countries in 1985 is taken as 100%, then it turns out that in 1991 in Czechoslovakia the industry was at the level of 78.8%, and in Hungary - at the level of 72, 3%. In other words, the Hungarians simply stretched their decline compared to the Czechs and Slovaks, who received all its “charms” in just one year. This shows that a huge recession was inevitable in Russia as well. The first reform programs consisted of a set of stabilization measures, institutional changes and structural policies, including privatization. Monetary and fiscal restrictions were supposed to bring down inflation, restore financial balance, and provide prerequisites for creating a stable macroeconomic situation. The liberalization of external relations was supposed to help reach the optimal price level and bring the necessary dose of competition to the domestic market. The most alarming and unexpected for the Eastern European countries was the “transitional” recession, which manifested itself in a reduction in production and employment to levels much lower than in the pre-reform period. The overall decline in production for the period 1989-1993. turned out to be really very large-scale, comparable, perhaps, only with the Great Depression of 1929-1933. The recession has reached particular depth in Bulgaria and Romania, countries reputedly less prepared for immediate market reforms and less advanced on the reform path than Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. Also noteworthy is the fact that in all the countries under consideration the decline in industrial production turned out to be noticeably deeper (more than half) than the decline in GDP. In Bulgaria and Romania, the decline in industrial production amounted to 50% by the end of 1993. Nevertheless, experts now tend to present the recession as quite natural and inevitable. One of the underlying assumptions was that near-full employment in a centrally planned economy was provided by weak labor discipline, the ideological dogma of full employment under socialism, and low wages. Accordingly, large-scale layoffs during the transition period were predicted. At the same time, it was assumed that the increased demand for labor in the service sector and private business would absorb a significant part of the excess labor in industry, so that the overall unemployment rate would remain moderate. In practice, in most Eastern European countries, unemployment has well exceeded 1/10 of the working-age population and remains at a high level, despite some economic recovery. at least alleviate this problem. Unfortunately, the relationship between levels of production and employment is not so simple. Calculate what is planned in the mid-90s. economic recovery will radically change the situation in the labor market, it is impossible, since the scale of new job creation will be generally blocked by the influx of new unemployed from the education sector (graduates of schools and universities), the overpopulated village and the shrinking public sector. As a result, Eastern European countries are likely to have to live with double-digit unemployment for several more years. Moreover, the share of long-term unemployment (more than 12 months) is gradually growing, in Poland and Bulgaria it is already close to 50%. Another disturbing fact is the growing unemployment of young people, such a trend threatens to leave them unemployed for a long time. Privatization played an important role in the process of Czechoslovak economic reforms. Privatization may focus on the sale of property, as a result of which, as a rule, it immediately passes into the hands of an effective owner who is able to restructure the enterprise and provide the necessary investments. Or privatization can provide a free transfer of property to a wide range of people, which creates the illusion of achieving social justice. In Czechoslovakia, which did not have such a long period of market development of the economy as in Hungary, and where there was no such a strong private sector as in Poland, the reformers had to lead the privatization process along a compromise path to the greatest extent. The situation was approximately the same in Russia. Therefore, the Russian model of privatization turned out to be largely similar to the Czechoslovak model, with the only difference that the relative weakness of the state forced Russian reformers to make concessions to the directors, who actually already controlled their enterprises, and labor collectives. In Russia, as in Czechoslovakia, practically all citizens of the country, and not just entrepreneurs, were involved in the privatization process in one form or another. In Prague, the authors of the privatization strategy liked to compare their position with a game of chess. At the beginning of the game, a chess player may have only the most general ideas about how he will act in the middle of the game, and have absolutely no concrete ideas about his strategy in the endgame. It is important to win the game. In the same way, the main task of the reformers is to carry out privatization. It is important to do this as quickly as possible and prevent the least economically efficient development of events - privatization in favor of labor collectives. More and more particular questions are the sphere of concrete searches, finds and possible compromises. The main form of compromise in Czechoslovakia was the use of vouchers. In one way or another, control over enterprises through the voucher mechanism was concentrated in the hands of investment funds, which eliminated the power of labor collectives, but later created other problems. At the initial stage of economic transformation, the Czech Republic was distinguished by the greatest political stability among all post-communist countries. In 1992, Klaus, relying on the features of rhetoric and politics discussed above, managed, being at the head of his civil democratic party (GDP), to win the parliamentary elections with a large advantage. This victory marked the end of the struggle between the two wings of the Civic Forum. The technocrats, led by Klaus, were able to form a governing coalition that also included neo-liberals from the Civic Democratic Alliance and representatives of the Christian Democratic Union. The coalition had a strong position in parliament and quietly ruled the country for four years. Immediately after the implementation of radical changes, Klaus did not have to experience the fickleness of people's love that Leszek Balcerowicz experienced in Poland and Yegor Gaidar in Russia. Klaus was the only one among liberal politicians who managed to carry out reforms and retain power without losing the elections to the left forces. In July 1992, the Declaration of Sovereignty of Slovakia was adopted. In November 1992, the federal parliament adopted a legal cessation of the existence of the Czechoslovak federation by January 1, 1993. Czechoslovakia was divided into two independent republics - the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The division took place, unlike the division of Yugoslavia, in an absolutely peaceful way. And unlike the division of the USSR, it happened after the main necessary reform steps had been implemented. Nevertheless, the transformations that were extremely important for the completion of modernization were to continue after 1993. From that moment on, reforms in the Czech Republic and Slovakia were carried out independently of each other. Thus, the “velvet” revolution and the collapse of the USSR indirectly or directly led to the collapse of a single state . The peaceful split of Czechoslovakia means the end of the ideas of Czechoslovism, which existed for more than a dozen years. It assumed, on the one hand, the unity of Czechs and Slovaks, and, on the other hand, their uniqueness as the only group of Slavs in Central and Eastern Europe committed to the principles of democracy.
In 1989, before the collapse of the communist regime, the political, economic and socio-psychological situation in Slovakia was different from that in the Czech Republic. Most of the Slovaks adapted relatively well to the socio-economic conditions of "real socialism". Slovak society did not consider - unlike Czech - forty years of "real socialism" a clear step back. The Slovak Republic developed this time for the better, the standard of living rose. Slovakia in 1989 was not sufficiently prepared for radical public
change, but only to a certain variant of restructuring.
In 1992, Slovak citizens retrospectively assessed the communist regime more positively than Czechs. In the Slovak Republic, a minority of those surveyed saw more advantages in the existing system than in the previous communist one, while in the Czech Republic, the majority thought so 12 .
The new democratic institutions were less trusted in Slovakia than in the Czech Republic. Much more than the Czechs, the Slovaks feared ethnic threats; a large percentage of the Slovak population was concerned about the possibility of civil war due to the inability of politicians to solve the problem of the Czechoslovak state system 13 . In Slovakia, there were also louder calls for a strong personality as a political leader. The citizens of Slovakia were noticeably more dissatisfied with the political and economic developments after 1989 1 , which was due in part to the fact that social and economic conditions in Slovakia were worse than in the Czech Republic.
Differences in attitudes towards a market economy and privatization have become fundamental. Most Czechs were of the opinion that only a market economy would ensure the success of economic development. In Slovakia, market economy supporters accounted for only a third. The majority of Czechs welcomed privatization, the majority of Slovaks rejected it 13 . These differences decisively influenced the behavior of the electorate in elections in both parts of Czechoslovakia. The Czechs voted in the 1992 parliamentary elections predominantly in favor of the reforms, while the Slovaks voted against it. This led to the fact that the representatives of the Czechs and Slovaks, who were elected to parliament in 1992, adhered to diametrically opposed political and economic concepts. The results of these elections gave the Czecho-Slovak dilemma an explosive momentum, which within a few minutes led to a political decision on the division of a single state.
Adaptation crisis during the transition to democracy and market economy. The transition from a centralized state to a market economy and from a one-party dictatorship to a pluralistic system could not be accompanied by economic and social crises. Economically, the communist system has been collapsing for many years, while maintaining political stability. It collapsed only when all resources were exhausted. A new turn of events could not but lead to a further deterioration in the living standards of the population, exacerbate the social problems inherited from the communist era. This process was much more dramatic in Slovakia than in the Czech part of the state. The economic difficulties of Slovakia led to the non-recognition of the market reforms organized by Prague.
Another dividing factor was education in the process of transformation in the Czech Republic and in the Slovak Republic 1990-1992. two completely autonomous party systems. The separation of the Slovak and Czech party systems was facilitated by a seriously flawed electoral law that allowed a political party to enter not only the National Council of the respective republic, but also the Federal Assembly if it received a certain percentage of the vote in only one of the two republics.
The citizens of Czechoslovakia - and the new political elite - had no experience of democracy in the early nineties, which had a negative impact
on further political development. Democracy is inevitably associated with conflicts that must be resolved publicly. Citizens were annoyed by the long disputes and disagreements of politicians in various commissions, their inability to find a consensus on a new state structure of relations between Czechs and Slovaks. They simply equated the Czecho-Slovak dilemma to a certain extent with conflicts, desiring a quick state-legal resolution of the issue. The division was also supported negatively by the media. Their analysis of the causes and likely consequences of partition was superficial. They uncritically repeated the opinions of politicians and basically defended the imaginary interests of "their" people. The media are responsible for
from? 133
polarization of public opinion of Czechs and Slovaks.
The partition factor was the deformation of political culture, due to the dominance of the previous period of communist ideology and the break in the continuity of historical development in the era of communism “Post-communist panic”, the helplessness of citizens in political orientation after the collapse of authoritarian structures, are typical of post-authoritarian societies. The atomization of society created a demand for a charismatic leader. It was a time of determined populist politicians such as Vladimir Meciar and Vaclav Klaus, who were extremely reluctant to compromise. The new nationalism, the collective-ideological function of which replaced the communist doctrine, also contributed to the development in this direction.
Czechoslovakia after November 1989 had to face a difficult situation in terms of its constitution. The Federation of Two Constituent Units is a very unfavorable variant of a federal state 13 . The institutionally decisive problem was that it was not possible to adopt a new - democratic and at the same time effective - constitution in time, by the beginning of the 1990s. The Prague Spring constitution, which continued to operate even after the break, was absolutely not suitable for facilitating the search for a democratic consensus. Its position, which ensured the absolute right of veto to one tenth of the deputies of the Federal Assembly elected in one of the republics, programmed a constitutional crisis. The authors of the constitutional law of the Czechoslovak federation
The 1968 division did not count (and at that moment, obviously, could not count) on the fact that in Czechoslovakia in the future elections could be held in which Czechs and Slovaks would vote for opposite political orientations and different models of the Czechoslovak state structure. The provisions of the constitution demanded again and again to achieve the unity of the coalition of Czechs and Slovaks in parliament, which was the circumstance due to which, after the 1992 elections, Czechoslovakia collapsed.
The Czech and Slovak political elites are jointly responsible for the fact that prior to the 1992 elections no consensus was reached on a new arrangement of the state-legal relations of both nations and that the possibility of creating adequate constitutional mechanisms that made the further existence of a single state possible was not used. Slovak politicians, the leadership of the Movement for Democratic Slovakia (DZDS), led by Vladimir Meciar, actively advocated partition. It prevented the election of the only strong personality capable of integrating the federation, Vaclav Havel, as president of the state. DZDS initiated in the Slovak National Council the declaration of independence and the adoption of the Slovak constitution, does not take into account the federal constitution. After the 1992 elections, the DZDS delegation demanded in coalition negotiations with the Czech Civic Democratic Party (GDP) complete independence and subjectivity of Slovakia in accordance with international law, which was tantamount to demanding the division of the state.
Faced with the actions of the leadership of the DZDS, given the balance of political forces and the threat of a constitutional crisis, the Czech side could not prevent the partition. When the division of the state became apparent, Czech politicians insisted that it should happen quickly, if possible, without violence and complications ("civilized").
The division of the Czech Republic and Slovakia was motivated by the interests of the Slovak power elite that emerged from the 1992 elections. The new Slovak state had several thousand highly paid positions in the newly created ministries, embassies, central bank and other institutions, which the supporters of the FDDZ and their coalition partners shared among themselves. All state property that had been privatized in the independent Slovak Republic became the property of those who were personally or politically close to the new government team for a fraction of the real price. Sales at symbolic prices to persons close to one of the three parties in the government coalition were practically the only method of privatization during Meciar.
The Czech side bears its part of the responsibility, the roots of which must be sought in history. The Czechs considered Czechoslovakia as their own national state, which was supplemented by Slovak territory. They did not ensure the autonomy promised to the Slovaks, the historical chances of constitutional equalization. During the sensitive phase after the turnaround, the Czech-dominated federal authorities in Prague hardly ceded a corresponding part of their competences to the Slovak authorities in Pressburg and took into account the wishes of the Slovak population in federal policy.
New countries appear with frightening regularity. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were only a few dozen independent sovereign states on the planet. Today there are almost 200 of them! If a country has already formed, then it is for a long time, so the disappearance of a country is extremely rare. There have been very few such cases in the last century. But if a country falls apart, then it completely disappears from the face of the Earth: along with the flag, the government and everything else. Below are ten of the most famous countries that once existed and prospered, but ceased to exist for one reason or another.
10. German Democratic Republic (GDR), 1949-1990
Established after World War II in a sector controlled by the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic was best known for its Wall and its tendency to shoot people who tried to get over it.
The wall was torn down with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. After its demolition, Germany united and again became a whole state. However, in the beginning, due to the fact that the German Democratic Republic was rather poor, unification with the rest of Germany almost ruined the country. At the moment, everything is fine in Germany.
9. Czechoslovakia, 1918-1992
Founded on the ruins of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, during its existence Czechoslovakia was one of the most vibrant democracies in pre-World War II Europe. Betrayed by Britain and France in 1938 in Munich, she was completely occupied by Germany and disappeared from the world map by March 1939. Later, she was occupied by the Soviets, who made her one of the vassals of the USSR. It was part of the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991. After the collapse, it again became a prosperous democratic state.
This story should have ended there, and, probably, the state would have been intact to this day if the ethnic Slovaks living in the eastern half of the country had not demanded secession into an independent state, dividing Czechoslovakia in two in 1992.
Today, Czechoslovakia no longer exists, in its place there is the Czech Republic in the west and Slovakia in the east. Although, given the fact that the Czech economy is booming, Slovakia, which is not doing so well, probably regrets secession.
8. Yugoslavia, 1918-1992
Just like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia was a product of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a result of World War II. Consisting mainly of parts of Hungary and the original territory of Serbia, Yugoslavia, unfortunately, did not follow the more intelligent example of Czechoslovakia. Instead, it was something of an autocratic monarchy before the Nazis invaded the country in 1941. After that, it was under German occupation. After the defeat of the Nazis in 1945, Yugoslavia did not become part of the USSR, but became a communist country under the leadership of the socialist dictator, Marshal Josip Tito, leader of the partisan army during World War II. Yugoslavia remained a non-aligned authoritarian socialist republic until 1992, when internal conflicts and intransigent nationalism erupted into civil war. After it, the country broke up into six small states (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro), becoming a clear example of what can happen if cultural, ethnic and religious assimilation goes wrong.
7. Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1867-1918
While all the countries that found themselves on the losing side after the First World War found themselves in an unsightly economic and geographical position, none of them lost more than the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was gnawed like a roast turkey in a homeless shelter. From the collapse of the once huge empire, such modern countries as Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia emerged, and part of the lands of the empire went to Italy, Poland and Romania.
So why did it fall apart while its neighbor, Germany, remained intact? Yes, because it did not have a common language and self-determination, instead, various ethnic and religious groups lived in it, which, to put it mildly, did not get along with each other. In general, the Austro-Hungarian Empire endured what Yugoslavia endured, only on a much larger scale, when it was torn apart by ethnic hatred. The only difference was that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was torn apart by the victors, while the disintegration of Yugoslavia was internal and spontaneous.
6. Tibet, 1913-1951
Although the territory known as Tibet existed for over a thousand years, it did not become an independent state until 1913. However, under the peaceful tutelage of a number of Dalai Lamas, it eventually clashed with Communist China in 1951 and was occupied by Mao's forces, thus ending its brief existence as a sovereign state. In the 1950s, China occupied Tibet, which grew more and more unrest, until Tibet finally rebelled in 1959. This led China to annex the region and dissolve the Tibetan government. Thus, Tibet ceased to exist as a country and instead became a "region", instead of a country. Today, Tibet is a huge tourist attraction for the Chinese government, even though there is a feud between Beijing and Tibet, due to the fact that Tibet is again demanding its independence.
5. South Vietnam, 1955-1975
South Vietnam was created by forcibly expelling the French from Indochina in 1954. Someone decided that dividing Vietnam into two parts around the 17th parallel would be a good idea, leaving Communist Vietnam in the north and pseudo-democratic Vietnam in the south. As in the case of Korea, nothing good came of it. The situation led to a war between South and North Vietnam, which eventually involved the United States. This war became for the United States of America one of the most devastating and costly wars in which America has ever taken part. In the end, torn apart by internal divisions, America withdrew its troops from Vietnam and left it to itself in 1973. For two years, Vietnam, divided in two, fought until North Vietnam, backed by the Soviet Union, seized control of the country, eliminating South Vietnam forever. The capital of the former South Vietnam, Saigon, was renamed Ho Chi Minh City. Since then, Vietnam has been a socialist utopia.
4. United Arab Republic, 1958-1971
This is another failed attempt to unite the Arab world. The Egyptian president, an ardent socialist, Gamel Abdel Nasser, believed that unification with Egypt's distant neighbor, Syria, would lead to the fact that their common enemy, Israel, would be surrounded on all sides, and that the united country would become super- strength of the region. Thus, the short-lived United Arab Republic was created, an experiment that was doomed to fail from the start. Separated by several hundred kilometers, creating a centralized government seemed an impossible task, plus Syria and Egypt could never agree on what the national priorities were.
The problem would be solved if Syria and Egypt united and destroyed Israel. But their plans were thwarted by the inopportune Six Day War of 1967, which ruined their joint border plans and turned the United Arab Republic into a defeat of biblical proportions. After that, the days of the union were numbered, and, in the end, the UAR fell apart with the death of Nasser in 1970. Without a charismatic Egyptian president to maintain a fragile alliance, the UAR quickly disintegrated, re-establishing Egypt and Syria as separate states.
3. Ottoman Empire, 1299-1922
One of the greatest empires in the history of mankind, the Ottoman Empire collapsed in November 1922, after a fairly long existence of over 600 years. It once stretched from Morocco to the Persian Gulf and from Sudan to Hungary. Its disintegration was the result of a long process of disintegration over many centuries, by the beginning of the 20th century only a shadow of its former glory remained from it.
But even then it remained an influential force in the Middle East and North Africa, and most likely would have remained so today if it had not participated in the First World War on the losing side. After the First World War, it was disbanded, its largest part (Egypt, Sudan and Palestine) went to England. In 1922, it became useless and eventually collapsed completely when the Turks won their war of independence in 1922 and terrified the Sultanate, creating modern Turkey along the way. However, the Ottoman Empire deserves respect for its continued existence no matter what.
2. Sikkim, 8th century AD-1975
Have you never heard of this country? Where have you been all this time? Well, seriously, how could you not know about small, landlocked Sikkim, nestled safely in the Himalayas between India and Tibet...that is, China. The size of a hot dog stand, it was one of those unknown, forgotten monarchies that managed to hold out until the 20th century, when its citizens realized that they had no particular reason to remain an independent state, and decided to unite with modern India in 1975.
What was remarkable about this small state? Yes, despite its incredibly small size, it had eleven official languages, which probably created havoc when signing road signs - this is assuming that there were roads in Sikkim.
1. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union), 1922-1991
It is difficult to imagine the history of the world without the participation of the Soviet Union in it. One of the most powerful countries on the planet, which collapsed in 1991, for seven decades it has been a symbol of friendship between peoples. It was formed after the collapse of the Russian Empire after the First World War and flourished for many decades. The Soviet Union defeated the Nazis when the efforts of all other countries were insufficient to stop Hitler. The Soviet Union almost went to war with the United States in 1962, an event called the Caribbean Crisis.
After the Soviet Union collapsed after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, it split into fifteen sovereign states, thus creating the largest bloc of countries since the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918. Now the main successor to the Soviet Union is democratic Russia.
The beginning of perestroika in the USSR had a direct impact on Czechoslovakia. The opportunities opened up by liberalization in the USSR were used by reformers in Czechoslovakia. The prologue of the "velvet revolution" was a student demonstration permitted by the authorities on November 17, 1989, which ended in dispersal and mass arrests of participants. The reaction to them followed almost instantly - a wave of protest demonstrations swept across the country, in organizing which the Civil Forum, created in the Czech Republic on November 19, played an important role, one of the leaders of which was Vaclav Havel.
A similar public organization, the Public Against Violence, was also created on the territory of Slovakia. The culmination of the activities of the opposition was a protest rally in Prague of many thousands. The result of these events was the peaceful surrender of the communist government and the formation of a new coalition government. These events went down in history as the "Velvet Revolution". President Husak resigned. On December 29, 1989, the Federal Assembly elected A. Dubcek as its chairman, and V. Havel as president of Czechoslovakia.
On April 20, 1990, the state was renamed the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (CSFR). Units of the Soviet Army were withdrawn from the territory of the country. In June 1990, the first free parliamentary elections since 1946 were held in the CSFR, in which candidates from the Civil Forum and the Public Against Violence won, receiving 170 out of 300 deputy mandates. Havel and Dubcek were re-elected to their posts. In Czechoslovakia, a profound transformation of the political system began.
Negotiations between representatives of the Czech Republic and Slovakia regarding the delimitation of powers within the federation began at the end of the summer and continued until the autumn of 1990. Their result was the signing of a constitutional act on the transfer of basic powers to the republics.
In March 1991, a split began between the two largest social movements in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which acted as the driving force behind the "Velvet Revolution". On the basis of the "Public Against Violence", the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (DZDS) was formed, which advocated the continuation of the process of separation of the two republics. The Civil Forum in the Czech Republic also split. His successor was the Civic Democratic Party (CDP), which advocated the speedy implementation of economic reforms. In June 1991, negotiations between the representatives of the Czech Republic and Slovakia resumed, but even before they were completed, Czech and Slovak politicians began to lean towards the option of "divorcing" the two republics.
In June 1992, general elections were held. The DZDS, led by Vladimir Meciar, received the majority of votes in Slovakia, and the GDP in the Czech Republic.
Czech Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus, a spokesman for the Czech Republic's victorious Civic Democratic Party, and Slovak Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar opened talks on the future of Czechoslovakia. Klaus and Meciar pursued various political and economic reform strategies. By the end of August 1992, the governments of the Czech Republic and Slovakia decided to terminate the existence of the CSFR. On September 1, 1992, the National Council of Slovakia approved the constitution of an independent state. On November 25, the federal parliament with a majority of three votes adopted a constitutional law on the cessation of the existence of the state of Czechoslovakia, which determined the time for the peaceful "divorce" of the two states - December 31, 1992.
