| Popis: |
This book analyses the rise and fall of Czechoslovak reform and its relation to the system of nomenklatura. Conceptually, it follows a “pluralistic” framework, primarily using Skilling's typology of Soviet- type authoritarianism. In the first chapter, I present a description of intellectual context of the emergence of “pluralism” in the field of so-called “Sovietology”. In the 1960s, a new intellectual milieu in political science allowed scholars to focus on research areas previously forbidden by a totalitarian model. Skilling's application of the concept of “pluralism” has probably been the most daring attempt of its kind to bridge the gap between area studies and empirical social science. Despite arousing numerous controversies, his five-fold typology of authoritarianism based on activity of vaguely defined interest groups remains an inspiring and useful device for comparative historical analysis. Moreover, the aim of this book is to thematise behavioral pluralism not only as a research framework, but also as an intellectual source for Czechoslovak reformers. Second chapter deals with some ideological precursors of the reform. Not only the West, but the Eastern Bloc was fascinated by achievements and perspectives of modern science. In 1961, the programme of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) revised official attitudes toward science. Hence, the official “Marxist- Leninist” ideology was complemented by powerful discourses of a scientific-technical revolution. In Czechoslovakia, a tension occurred between the necessity of the “rationalization” of the economy given by “objective” failures of the system on the one hand, and “rigidity” of local “Neo-Stalinists” on the other. Despite this, the Party acknowledged the need for expertise; for the party intelligentsia it was more feasible to take part in the decision-making process in the mid-1960s. The presence of experts constituted a kind of “consultative element” within the Czechoslovak authoritarian structure. In this period, some reform concepts (very often justified by scientific language) emerged. Moreover, all significant reform proposals shared one common theme – interest differentiation. At the same time, the “pluralist” ideas of Czechoslovak “legal” scholars backed Western “revisionist” reasoning. Discussions about reform were necessarily connected with reconsiderations of the system of cadre appointments. In late 1965, the Presidium approved an internal treatise on modest change of the nomenklatura system. In this, the leadership was to retain certain criteria, “Communist consciousness” and proper knowledge of Marxism-Leninism. On the other hand, the document stressed the need for the proper education of cadres. Four months later, the Presidium approved the new nomenklatura of the Central Committee. In connection with the decentralization of the economy, approved in 1965, the concept of the list underwent appreciable change. First and foremost, there was a reduction of its scope. More than 38% of economic positions disappeared from the list. Moreover, the number of actors allowed to send proposals to the party apparatus enlarged. The role of political organs of state (e.g. ministers, the chair of the National Assembly, etc.) also increased. The greatest shift in practice of appointments occurred in 1968–1969, as I demonstrate in the third chapter. Assessing the outcomes of so-called Prague Spring, one has to distinguish between the elites'intentional action on the one hand and spontaneous processes inside the Party and civil society on the other. Starting with the former, I assume that Novotný's departure and Dubček's selection to the position of the First Secretary of the Central Committee in January 1968 was not a sufficient precondition for elaboration of the reform conception. Dubček's “interregnum” allowed decomposition of the leading role of the Party as well as a relatively free expression of conflicting societal interests. Personally and programmatic |
