Political elite, civil society, and type of capitalism: Estonia and Slovenia

East European Quarterly, March, 2008 by Frane Adam, Matevz Tomsic, Primoz Kristan

Introduction

In addition to being former communist countries, Slovenia and Estonia share several other similarities. First, they are both small countries in terms of the size of their territory and number of inhabitants. Second, they are new countries that gained independence only after the collapse of communist regimes. (In the case of Estonia, independence was, in fact, regained since it was a sovereign country in the period between the two World Wars.) Third, they were the most economically developed regions in former multi-national settings (although Slovenia was at a considerably higher level in this regard) with the most Western contacts due to their geographical proximity to Western Europe: Slovenia borders Austria and Italy while Estonia has a maritime border with Finland.

However, the nature of the communist regimes in these two countries differed considerably in some aspects. In general, the Yugoslav regime was much more open and Slovenia enjoyed more regional as well as national (cultural) autonomy, while in Estonia the oppressiveness of the Soviet regime remained strong until the beginning of perestroika and Estonians were exposed to a severe process of Russification (which resulted in a one third Russian-speaking population--this demographic fact still has quite important political and social consequences).

Despite the above-mentioned similarities and some differences, these two new EU members experienced different dynamics in their systemic transformation. They established varying types of socioeconomic regulation and different institutional settings. Our analysis intends to show how these variations were determined partly by the logic of historic legacy or "path-dependence," i.e., the conditions at the start of the transition process, as well as by the character of the main actors, namely the elites, particularly the political ones, and their strategic choices. In order to understand better the role and significance of these two factors, the structuring of political arena in both countries in the post-communist period, the ideological background of elite configurations and their consequences for socioeconomic development will be outlined.

Elite formation and (re)configuration

One characteristic of post-socialist political elites is their heterogeneity. They are made up of individuals and groups with various social and historical origins and ideological orientations: former dissidents with diverse roots, more or less reformist members of the former communist nomenclature, members of professional groups (so-called "technocrats"), people from the sphere of the Church, and even some members of prewar political elites. According to Agh, the transitional political elite possesses a number of common characteristics such as its distance from the non-elite and a lack of professionalism. For this reason, society perceives it as a unified actor which "monopolizes politics and exerts control over all social life" (Agh 1996: 45). However, numerous antagonisms and conflicts exist among the various elite segments, especially the competition for control over key resources that the actors are trying to obtain through various social linkages (the search for allies, various "coalitions"); all of this means we are not dealing with a uniform group.

The social conditions in the countries of the former communist bloc are largely characterized by the relationship between so-called old and new elites; i.e., between elites coming from the ranks of the former regime and the relatively heterogeneous elites formed during the process of system transition. It must, however, be stressed that it is often difficult to make a clear-cut division between the old and new elites. Even the former nomenclature has in fact experienced various transformations, and part of it has embraced (at least formally) democratic principles and norms; thus, thought and action patterns that are essentially a relic of the former undemocratic system are often found in recently-founded political parties.

Nevertheless, a key question of post-socialist transformations concerns the position and role of the former holders of monopolistic social power such as the members of former communist elites: in other words, whether and to what extent they were able to retain key social resources and thereby continue to influence the development of these societies. In view of this, there are two interpretations of post-socialist conditions. The theory of elite reproduction holds that changes in Central and Eastern Europe did not have an impact on the composition of elites since the nomenclature was able to stay at the top of the social structure and become the new grand bourgeoisie. According to Hankiss (1990), the communist elites (at least their "reformed" parts) used their political capital to acquire economic assets (through processes such as "spontaneous privatization"). During the transition process, the nomenclature managed to stay in its positions because it succeeded in a particularly rapid conversion (Matonyte/Mink 2003). The socioeconomic structure of post-communist societies is thus argued to be designed according to the needs of this elite, described in terms such as "political capitalism" (Staniszkis 1991) or "crony capitalism" (Hanley 2000). According to the alternative theory of elite circulation, however, these transformations are brought about by structural changes at the top of the social hierarchy, i.e., the key positions are occupied by new people on the basis of new principles (Szelenyi/Szelenyi 1995: 616).