Democracy is still fostering fear and anxiety in the East

For postcommunist countries, the transition to democracy is a significant psychological challenge.

By Bridget Murray
Monitor staff

A joke has been making the rounds in Hungary recently: What can capitalism do in four years that communism couldn?t do in 40? Answer: Make communism look good.

Jokes reflecting discontent with increased crime, economic hardship and personal responsibility?changes wrought by a new laissez-faire system?are common in the former Eastern bloc countries these days, said psychologist Jancis Long, PhD, who told the joke at an International Congress session on postcommunist Europe. Black humor helps people cope with their countries? rocky transition to democracy?an angst-ridden process not unlike what families experience when they splinter apart and form new families, according to panelists at the session.

'Democracy doesn?t simply grow like a flower when you cast off oppression,' said Long, the session?s chair and a faculty member at the Semmelweis University of Medicine, Behavioral Science Institute, in Budapest, Hungary. Instead people feel 'dizziness' over the rate of change and new rules, 'seasickness' over new responsibilities and competitive pressures, she said. The effects of the old, authoritarian family linger on.

'The psychological legacy of totalitarianism is a fear of taking personal responsibility, a tendency to act like a dysfunctional family, where leaving the group is a sort of betrayal even if there is no reason for political fear left,' said Long. 'Changing to an open society brings with it psychological problems?the fear and anxiety that if I throw myself into my own work and beliefs, I risk someone else saying I?m wrong.'

And, just as psychologists help people adapt to a new family, they can aid the former communist countries as they work their way toward democracy, panelists said. It?s a matter of helping those countries navigate the initially perilous waters of group decision-making, personal initiative and accountability, the panelists argued in the session, which was well attended by Central and Eastern European psychologists.

The legacy of totalitarianism

The Czech Republic is one example of a country that hasn?t yet reversed dependent behaviors fostered by a communist/totalitarian regime, argues Czech psychologist Olga Marlin, PhD, in a paper that Nancy Murdock, of the Santa Barbara Medical Foundation, read at the session. Despite having overthrown that oppressive government in 1989?and later splitting the country into the Czech Republic and Slovakia?the citizenry still tends toward 'childlike dependency on omnipotent leaders,' said Marlin. Alienated by the former communist government herself, Marlin left Czechoslovakia during the 1960s to train as a psychotherapist in New York City.

The old government suppressed psychotherapy, but the new one values it, so Marlin has returned to the Czech Republic to practice psychotherapy and teach at the Charles University of Prague. But the reticence toward self-expression she encounters among her students and the Czech people in general concerns her. It stems, she claims, from the former government?s role as an authoritarian parent that forbade its citizens to 'individuate or separate themselves from the Big Ideological Family.'

'Typically, hidden opposition was expressed only as avoidance, or as a private negative stance,' writes Marlin in her paper. 'This avoidant stance is still rather common among Czechs. They often say something new cannot be done, or they try to avoid getting involved in a project.' Learned helplessness is widespread, she says.

'Czechs learned that in most ways they could not affect the course of their lives,' she says. '[They] learned that being inexpressive and passive was the safest way to be.'

As a result, students in her classes hesitate to speak out and express opinions. Czech citizens struggle to reconcile a split between the thoughts they voice in public and beliefs they hold in private, Marlin said. And, unfortunately, those residual attitudes block progress toward democratization, she concludes.

Building openness

Taking a more positive tack is Berlin psychologist Susan Scharwiess, Dipl-Psych, who has spearheaded an organization that supports postcommunist democratization. Known as Systems in Transition, this group of mental health professionals applies family therapy principles to Eastern Europe?s political upheaval. In 1992, Systems in Transition held its first meeting in Storkow, Germany, to discuss German unification and Yugoslavian disintegration. Since then, the group has met annually in Slovakia, Bulgaria and other politically transitional countries to ponder such issues as political crisis, identity and intergroup conflict, and also power and leadership.

The first meeting of the group?s psychologists and social scientists brought out the initial friendliness that characterizes new stepfamilies, said Scharwiess. But subsequent meetings revealed the strain of bringing together Western interests with those of the former Eastern bloc countries. Meeting attendees from both East and West had high, unrealized expectations of the other side. Also, some attendees from Eastern countries appeared to resent Scharwiess and her Western colleagues, equating them 'with power, money and ability,' she said.

Since then, they?ve put their 'preconceptions and bickering to rest' and crafted a model of political transition, said Scharwiess.

Cultivating a democracy

A major obstacle to political change, though, is the psychological difficulty of democratic decision-making, said Long in the session?s closing presentation. In the former communist/totalitarian regimes, people felt a sense of closeness against the boss.

In the new democratic system, however, 'you?re now competing individuals,' she said. People making group decisions often struggle to adjust to the new openness, she says. Many focus only on areas of agreement and cringe at disagreement or misinterpret it as a personal attack. Such feelings run high in a fragile new democracy, 'where one stormy meeting can destroy the openness,' said Long.

A dangerous progression can emerge:

? Characteristics of democratic decision-making, such as trial and error and unchecked criticism from other people, can spur psychological reactions that undermine openness.

? Assertion slides into aggression, healthy self-defense disintegrates into defensiveness and gentleness crumbles into withdrawal from decision-making. 'Some people shut up and others stomp off,' said Long.

? People?s anger, defensiveness and withdrawal weaken democracy, making the system vulnerable to its enemies.

To prevent such a breakdown, Long called on psychologists to inform transitioning countries about 'the give and take of healthy critical debate.' Those countries especially need psychologists? expertise on education and parenting, she said. In talking to parents and consulting on curriculum development, for example, psychologists can emphasize such skills as listening effectively, turning anger into productive energy and focusing on the argument, not the person, she said.

Societies in the early stages of democracy need 'psychological understanding and specific training against our own in-built tendencies to dominate and submit, to attack, defend and withdraw,' said Long. Mastery of those tendencies builds robust social institutions, she said.Y

To join Systems in Transition or to find out more about it, write to Systems in Transition, Windscheidstr. 12, D-10627 Berlin, telephone/fax 49/30/3228287.