As an American, but one very familiar with Central and Eastern Europe, I believe that integrated Europe is extremely important for several reasons. First of all, it is important for maintaining peace and stability, and thus, for overcoming terrible legacies of the Second World War, so devastating to Europe and the rest of the world. Secondly, European Union plays a crucial role in creating economic opportunities for all of its members. The current crisis should not make us forget how prosperous Europe is and can still be. Thirdly, European integration might be a driving force behind a process of creating broader sense of political identity. Europeans have so many different cultures and nationalities and there is a need to bring them together, so that they have some shared sense of community. Any European project has to take this into account, but at the same time create means for people to cultivate their own national identity at the local level.

The process of European integration has gone through a number of changes since the early 1990s. Some of them were very encouraging, and some problematic. The first dramatic change occurred right after 1989, when the long-lasting Soviet domination over a large part of the continent collapsed and many nations suddenly had to reinvent their states, drawing upon their own democratic traditions. In Poland or Czechoslovakia, as it then was, i.e. countries with some history and strong feelings for democracy, this transformation proceeded quite smoothly. In other states it was less clear on what traditions new institutions should be built. In Hungary, where I now live, there have been strong democratic traditions, but also strong authoritarian traditions, dating back to the Habsburg era. The same is certainly true of Romania, Bulgaria and other countries in the Central and Eastern Europe. These were the initial challenges, later developing in the 1990s.

At that time there were two major steps, Eastern Europeans were eager to take in order to revive and develop their democratic traditions. The first one was the NATO accession. Joining the alliance which has been at the center of the Cold War, but which was really committed to the defense of democracy, was a very important moment for them. Being admitted to the group meant becoming a member of the democratic community. The EU accession – the second of the steps – was more complicated, but perhaps even more important. Undoubtedly it created more excitement among the public, also because of some practical advantages of participating in the common market and being able to travel within the Schengen zone.

Ten years after the accession, we clearly see that at least some expectations of the public have not been met. Why? Firstly, there was a structural problem from the very outset. European Union was designed largely as an economic project and it failed to create effective instruments of political participation for the public. Centralization of the European bureaucracy in Brussels and the development of a highly structured regulatory governance system created a growing frustration among the Central European societies, and indeed among other European peoples as well. A democracy deficit at the highest levels is one of the major problems EU needs to tackle in order to develop. It has been partially addressed by the growing political influence of the European Parliament, which has become a more active player in representing opinions of the European electorate. But I think there is still a lot to be done in order to give people a sense of participation. Otherwise, they will always turn for help only to their national governments, which can sometimes act against Brussels.

The second big factor undermining trust in the European project was obviously the economic meltdown. The way the euro crisis has been managed so far seems to prove that southern and eastern regions of the EU are treated as secondary areas by the central economies of Germany, the Benelux area and to a lesser extent France. Economic instability has also created some further tensions, since people affected by the crisis want to identify the causes of it and punish those, who are allegedly to blame, i.e. immigrants and ethnic minorities. As a result in many European countries xenophobic sentiments are on the rise. The anti-immigrant, anti-Roma perspective that you see in Europe today is very disturbing. These are pan-European phenomena, not specific to the Central and Eastern Europe. Naturally, different politicians in different countries are using these processes to foster their own interests. This is particularly true in Hungary, but in other countries as well.

Will these two factors undermine the whole process of European integration? We should do all we can to prevent it. European integration is of crucial importance for the reasons of peace, stability, economic prosperity and democratic rule across the whole continent. This is even more true today than ever. That is why I was pleased to see Croatia becoming a member, and I think it is of crucial importance to bring in other Balkan countries. Dynamic European integration, even if it has serious problems today, should continue and must not be reversed.

* John Shattuk is an American legal scholar and diplomat. He was the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor from 1993 to 1998, under President Bill Clinton. From 1998 to 2000 he served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic. Since 2009 he has been the President and Rector of Central European University (CEU) in Budapest. This article originally appeared in Kultura Liberalna.

The seminar on “New New Social Movements” has just ended and our tentative findings are in: there is indeed a new kind of social movement that has emerged in the past couple of years. Our task has been to identify and understand the promise and perils of this new movement type, to specify its common set of characteristics, its causes and likely consequences. We began our investigations in Wroclaw and will continue in the coming months. This is the first of a series of progress reports summarizing our deliberations of the past couple of weeks. -Jeff

The new movements are broad and diverse. Our informed discussions ranged from the uprisings of the Arab Spring, to Occupy Wall Street, including also the protests in major Romanian cities and the mining region, protests against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in Poland, protests in Israel concerning issues of housing, food, healthcare and other social demands, and the protests in Russia over the absence of democracy in the conduct of the affairs of state and elections. Participants with special knowledge of these social movements presented overviews in light of the social science theory and research of our common readings. We then all compared and contrasted the movements. We worked to identify commonalities and differences in social movement experiences.

We started with readings and a framework for discussion as I reported here. I had a hunch, a working hypothesis: the media is the message, to use the motto of Marshall McCluhan. But I thought about this beyond the social media, as in “this is the Facebook revolution.” Rather my intuition, which the seminar participants supported, told me that the social form (in this sense the media) rather than the content is what these movements share.

There is a resemblance with the new social movements of the recent past studied by Alain Touraine and Alberto Melucci, but there is something else that distinguishes the new social movements of the moment: a generational focus on the creation of new publics to address major concerns. We found the work of Jurgen Habermas and Hannah Arendt helpful in understanding this, as well as the approaches of my colleagues Eiko Ikegami and Elzbieta Matynia, along with my work.

The movements seem fundamentally to support Hannah Arendt’s primary thesis about politics and the public domain. In her sense, the new “new social movements” are definitively political, about people speaking and acting in the presence of each other, dedicated to their common autonomy, as equals in their differences. Politics to her mind is not a means to an end but an end in itself. She may have exaggerated this, but that it is an important dimension of political life is confirmed by the formation of the new “new social movements” as we studied them in Wroclaw.

Indeed our discussions confirmed Arendt’s position, with important variations on the theme and with specifications. Today some preliminary notes on Romania and Poland. More comparisons, contrasts and implications in upcoming posts.

Ana Maria Murg reported on movements in Romania. Demonstrations over changes in government funding of healthcare eventually led to changes in governments and public policy, and important links between the elites of the political opposition and a broad range of citizens. Most interesting was her report on how the protesters around the country (especially in the major cities) re-legitimized the idea of protest as a democratic way of manifesting citizen discontent. The protests against the government achieved their immediate ends, changes in the governing elite, but Murg believes that the most significant fact was the development of a capacity for members of the society to act in addressing their concerns, from the dangers of de-funding the social safety net, to the employment of miners, to a youth movement against proposed changes in laws about intellectual property, the movement, against ACTA. She showed us videos of demonstrating social activists, including one of her own making.

I found particularly intriguing the way Murg identified links between protests about the ruling elite, ACTA and the mines. She revealed members of a society that was coming together, or at least the potential of this, by addressing their specific concerns, not an enforced unity and the reaction against this, as was the case in Romanian during the communist era and in the demonstrations that brought this to an end, as I analyzed in the chapter on 1989 in The Politics of Small Things (see here) Murg’s report indicated to me a remarkable progress, a turning around, a revolution in micro-politics. In Romania and in the other cases we studied I found evidence of the increasing significance of the politics of small things.

Anti-ACTA demonstrations in Poland were probably the most intense in the region, if not globally. Aleksandra Przegalinska provided the seminar with an analysis. Because young Poles have become accustomed to free access to just about everything on the web, the new law created controversy as it appeared to threaten this way of life. It was a perceived attack upon what they understood as their free public domain. Przegalinska reported a provocative irony: ACTA, according to government and independent analysis, is less restrictive than existing Polish law concerning intellectual property.Yet, the secrecy of the law’s development and the lack of certainty concerning its provisions, provoked broad public resistance. Young people shared their concerns through social media. They exchanged ideas and strategies. They worked together to protest the proposed policy through cyber-activism. The constituted an independent public and independent public action. Government sites were attacked, and the state and the society took notice. Small discreet exchanges led to concerted actions, a major social protest.

Off line demonstrators all met in central squares around the country, seeing each other, sometimes simply jumping up and down together, confirming their solidarity. I noted that this reversed previous conventions, when people demonstrated in the streets, disrupting life and usual, and went home to see how it was represented on the television. Now they go to the streets to see themselves. We all agreed that this relationship between the virtual and the embodied, the politically instrumental and ceremonial, were more situationally enacted.

The Poles acted to defend their capacity to speak and act freely. They defended a free public. This resonated with their understanding of the struggles of the recent past. They were worried about the secrecy and restrictions of the present.

Romanians and Poles are in movement: forming and defending free publics as an end of political engagement.

More to come soon.

In January, the streets of București, Timișoara, Cluj, Iași and many other Romanian cities have witnessed people’s frustration, desperation, and anger directed at the political class and particularly at President Traian Băsescu. Initially, it was the resignation of Dr. Raed Arafat, the country’s popular Deputy Health Minister, over plans to privatize emergency health services that sparked off the protests. But after President Băsescu withdrew the privatization proposal and reinstated the Deputy Minister, protesters in large numbers continued to occupy the streets and squares of Romanian cities. In a further attempt of appeasement, Prime Minister Emil Boc fired Foreign Minster Teodor Baconschi, for his remarks about the protesters on his personal blog. Baconschi had called the protesters, or as he claims only some of them, “inept and violent slum dwellers.” But still, while not intimidated by blizzards, the protesters are out in the streets, waving their placards.

What is behind the Romanian “winter of discontent?” The media, commentators and protesters themselves explain that they are revolting against the “political class.” Other words that are used to describe the endless rallies are democracy, dictatorship and, more often, dignity. Demonstrators are asking: “What does Romanian democracy mean?” They are stating that “Communism fell more than 20 years ago, but our life is no better.” Many blame the large IMF loans that the current Romanian government took to keep the economy afloat and the austerity measures that “had to be implemented.” However, there is a deeper infection, or, as one Romanian theater director and writer points out, there is a “cancer” eating away at Romanian society.

The Guardian calls Romanians “an apathetic nation.” Personally, I see them as perseveringly patient and hopeful for an end to the popular and yet interminable “transition.” They have been patient at least until now when, as the Romanian saying goes, “the blade has reached the bone.”

Growing up I was taught that Romanians have to laugh at themselves. We call it “haz de necaz,” or laughing in the face of trouble. And we have been patiently laughing at ourselves in the face of many difficulties that the transition to democracy brought after 1989. The remnants of the old regime’s under the table deals in an economy of shortages and mutual favors, combined with the current market economy that clearly differentiates between winners and losers, have created an unfavorable environment for democratic practices. Indeed, democracy cannot take root overnight, but it needs support, care and effort.

On the Opera House building in Timioșara the protesters placed a sign that read, “We want the paradise promised when communism ended,” followed by “Down with Băsescu.” I think Romanians have finally realized that their own initiative is needed to realize the old promise. Although they might not have a feasible plan yet (removing Băsescu will most likely not change much) and their signs might be too nationalistic or idealistic, at least Romanians are no longer passive or simply laughing in the face of their trouble. This might explain why they did not leave the squares when the Deputy Health Minister got his job back and the President agreed to reconsider the health bill. It is to be hoped that they will not stop when Băsescu leaves power, willingly or through elections.

The current President is just a small piece in the puzzle. On Christmas Day 1989, I remember watching the executions of Elena and Nicolae Ceauşescu, over and over again, on our black and white TV. I asked my mother what it all meant. After explanations of democracy and freedom (which I do not recall but my mother tells me I received),  she changed the tune. She explained that now I could eat oranges whenever I wanted, not only on Christmas. That made me very happy. Then she continued. She said it also meant that I would not have to be a Pioneer anymore. This broke my heart. I was looking forward to be a Pioneer, to wear the nice Red Scarf, sing the songs, and be a big girl worthy to pledge allegiance to the country in the Pioneer uniform in front of everybody. I grew up and realized that was silly of me. I was only five at the time of the Revolution and the Ceauşescu couple’s execution. I did indeed see oranges after 1989, but from my mom’s teacher’s salary we only could afford to look at them in the stores. So here I am, like many of my high school friends with shiny university diplomas. We live abroad and spend our lives on Skype with family. “Down with Băsescu,” they say… if only it was that easy.

The blue, yellow and red national flags with the hole in the middle that fly over the crowds these days echo the practice during the 1989 Revolution, when people cut out the socialist emblem from the center of the flag. The emblem’s absence became the symbol of the revolution and of extirpating the old regime out of Romania(ns). The similarities between today’s protests and the 1989 Revolution are, I think, more than symbolic. Many of the current dysfunctions are caused by leftover practices and practitioners from the old regime. They were left unquestioned or were simply ossified in our (un)consciousness. Of course, the billions of euros in IMF loans, growing poverty, and the austerity measures have indeed fueled the discontent. But this time, it seems to me, it is not only about the price of bread.

Romanians want democracy, in the real sense of the word. The protesters assert their desire for dignity, for being recognized, respected and treated with human dignity by those who represent them and those who make the laws that affect their lives. They feel cheated by a corrupt system that favors only those who are good at stealing and faking it.

Back on that day in 1989, after a quick trial, the Ceauşescus were shot dead by those who called themselves liberators. Twenty- three years later, Romanians are still waiting for the happy beginning of a new, free and democratic life. Shooting Băsescu won’t do. Impeaching the whole political class might do something, but not enough. People need to realize that they are the ones who need to make the effort to build the promised paradise. It might be easy for me to ask them from afar to sacrifice their time, dreams and maybe their entire lives to build something that they possibly will never get to enjoy. The media is already speculating that our “winter of discontent” may bring in a new center-left government but no end to the austerity measures. Yet, I sense something greater is happening in those squares and streets: a conscious defrosting of the political and social senses of a patient people, who have reached the end of their indulgence in passive hope.