Why did the communist regimes in eastern Europe break down so quickly after 1989?

Authors Avatar

WHY DID THE COMMUNIST REGIMES IN EASTERN EUROPE BREAK DOWN SO QUICKLY AFTER 1989? WHAT HAVE BEEN THE MAJOR CONSEQUENCES FOR EUROPEAN POLITICS?

In the immediate view, it seems that there are many reasons for the collapse of the Eastern European communist regimes after 1989. Many political analysts argue that it was due to the rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev, others that it was just a matter of time before this happened. It is the aim of this essay to give substantial evidence as to why communist regimes broke down so quickly after 1989. In order to accomplish this, the essay will firstly outline the causes of the revolution of 1989 – the event that triggered the fall of communism. Secondly we will discover why this break down of seemingly rigid communist regimes was so quick to take place. Finally, the essay will assess exactly what the major consequences for European Politics have been since the fall of communism in 1989.

In 1989, state communism crumbled in Central and Eastern Europe, this was most important for the countries involved but also had a great bearing on European and World Politics. Prior to 1989 there had always been much speculation concerning the future of the communist states, but it had always been misleading. Through all these predictions however, two stood out.

In Jürg Steiner’s book – European Democracies – we are given the view of Jeane Kirkpatrick, a political scientist and former US ambassador to the United Nations. Her thoughts were that ‘no real internal changes’ would take place and that;

                the history of this century provides no grounds for

                expecting that radical totalitarian regimes will

transform themselves.   

 It was Kirkpatrick’s belief that these countries were so embedded in communism that they would never change their political stance. In her argument she cited that even dictatorships such as those in Chile, Argentina and Brazil were open to internal change, but that communist countries were not.

It was ironic, therefore, that at her time of writing we viewed a change in leadership in the Soviet Union. The view had been that communist rulers were not willing to make any fundamental changes, ‘but then came Mikhail Gorbachev – also a communist ruler – and he was willing to change’. However unlikely this had seemed to Kirkpatrick and many other political observers, it happened and it seemed that changes were afoot. It is easy, with hindsight, to say that these analysts made an error of judgement, but in reality, predictions should always be taken lightly, as often the future in politics falls to mass undeterminable opinion rather than to a determinable outcome.

Another prediction made about the future of communism claimed that interaction theory – increased contacts with the west – would cause ‘slow, gradual changes’ in Eastern Europe. This theory may have been correct in defining that the increased interaction would lead somewhere, but it was ultimately let down by the rapidity of the changes that occurred in 1989.

Join now!

The real reason for the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was the great revolution of autumn 1989. Without the momentous events that took place in the Soviet Union, state communism would not have dissolved as easily as it did. It may have succumbed in time, but;

                the real trigger for what happened in 1989 was the                                         decision of Mikhail Gorbachev to let the Central and                                 Eastern European countries go their own way

And why did he do this? Firstly it was Gorbachev’s belief that state communism was in need of dramatic reform. This reform or perestroika began ...

This is a preview of the whole essay