57 pages • 1 hour read
The Magic Lantern
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Economics as a Driver of Political Change
Garton Ash considers economics as both a short- and long-term driver of political change. He considers economic forces to explain not only why the revolutions of 1989 happened when they did, but why the entire system became increasingly unpopular and unsustainable. By the 1980s, Polish workers and ordinary citizens experienced declining wages and rising inflation. Garton Ash notes that “only a government with Solidarity’s clear endorsement would have the credibility to push through the painful measures of austerity and restructuring which necessarily would accompany any serious programme of economic reform” (32). People in Poland complained that the government could not even provide basic staples, such as toilet paper. The ongoing economic collapse put urgent pressure on the transition to a new government, and Garton Ash notes that the former communist rulers collaborated productively with Solidarity to usher in the transition. Solidarity had the credibility as a social movement to urge its constituency to accept the changes, including the possibility of job loss.
The GDR’s proximity to the democratic and capitalist Federal Republic of Germany also had specific economic repercussions. When the Berlin Wall opened in November 1989, many of those who crossed it went shopping, to access consumer goods that had previously been entirely unavailable to them. The GDR’s continued existence seemed increasingly unlikely, as its proximity to a capitalist democracy made the reunification of the two Germanies the more likely outcome. Garton Ash notes that protests included signs such as, “Mercedes, Buy the Sachsenring factory!” and he declares, “the people had seen West Germany, and it worked” (64). Ordinary people also wanted access to the purchasing power of West German currency (64). Economics had less primacy in the immediate events of Czechoslovakia in 1989, but the overall lack of credibility of the communist model is relevant to all of Garton Ash’s case studies. He notes that the “general strike” in Czechoslovakia took place over a matter of hours, as the revolutionaries did not wish to be associated with significant economic disruption.
In his conclusion, Garton Ash quotes the popular aphorism in the region, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us” (118), as a commonplace of the period from 1945-1989. The proverb reflected the lack of investment in consumer goods and the frequency of shortages and long waits for products. He also notes the gap between the standard of living of party elites and ordinary citizens helped create a broad sense of solidarity and mutual dependency that might not have otherwise existed (131-32). He argues that ordinary citizens accepted that middle class lifestyles they aspired to were compatible with democracy. They saw the same “bourgeois” politics that Marxism had claimed was antithetical to human flourishing as essential to their futures. This same resentment of elite success, this time in the form of party members who had become oligarchs and become wealthy during privatization, remained a fixture of the region’s politics, as Garton Ash describes in his 2019 afterword. Where Marx argued that the inequities of capitalism would drive history forward to revolution, Garton Ash argues that the same failure of revolution to establish a prosperous economy helped discredit the entire ideological basis of communism.
The Power of Historical Memory
Garton Ash devotes significant time to the political and social import of the national past, especially in the case studies of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and the GDR. Certain political figures became key to ideological battles, even, in the case of Imre Nagy, after their deaths. Part of Hungary’s political struggles took place within its communist party, unlike in Poland where Solidarity led the reform process as an outsider. The legacy of the failed revolution of 1956, and Imre Nagy’s execution and secret burial, became increasing liabilities for Hungary’s communist party as it sought ongoing legitimacy and a path to reform. Nagy’s reburial served as a tacit acknowledgement that the Soviet invasion, and the current government’s acceptance of it, had been a national tragedy that should be openly acknowledged. Garton Ash imparts the episode with Shakespearean gravitas, as when he compares Kádár to a “sick old king” (45) who is in some way being forced to reckon with his crimes and complicity. While some young reformers, like Viktor Orbán, used the Nagy funeral to speak out against Hungary’s membership in the Warsaw Pact and the presence of Soviet troops in the country, Communist leaders also participated in the funeral. Unlike Solidarity in 1980, the event did not immediately spark a popular uprising. Garton Ash still considers it a key turning point akin to the Polish elections. Garton Ash seems to regard Nagy as a kind of martyr, deliberately using the language of “resurrection” to describe his burial. In his view, then, moral reckoning may have had practical import for the communist leadership, but its symbolic meaning is equally powerful.
Like their Hungarian counterparts, Czechoslovaks also contended with the legacy of a failed revolution in imagining the post-communist future. The Prague Spring of 1968, and Dubček’s calls for “socialism with a human face” was crushed by Soviet troops, but its historical and cultural legacy remained powerful. Garton Ash notes that artists and intellectuals faced increasing repression in the 1970s, especially those who participated in the human rights movement known as Charter 77, which included Havel in their number.
In 1989, Havel’s public appearances with Dubček inspired the crowd to new hopes for political change, though Dubček remained a committed communist. Garton Ash suggests that Dubček was likely stunned by the change in his fortunes, as “the old man must believe he will wake up in a moment an find he is dreaming” as the crowd calls for “the man of ’68 and the man of ’89” ((85). Here, too, the language of resurrection seems appropriate since Dubček was a political and social pariah after his departure from power. In Garton Ash’s narrative, national renewal requires both an open celebration of the best of the past and an acknowledgment of the needs of the moment. While Havel is the unquestioned leader of the Civic Forum and of Czechoslovakia, Dubček's participation imparts moral weight to the process. More practically, the repudiation of the 1968 invasion from both the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact signaled that hardline governments could no longer depend on external support to retain power.
By the 2019 afterword, the entire communist period has become a memory in its own right, as has the painful transition to capitalism. Garton Ash suggests that this explains some of the particular struggles in that region and the rise of popular discontent, as citizens recall their prior living standards and are now disillusioned with the promise of capitalism. Yet 1989 itself remains a powerful memory for activists working for change in the present. Garton Ash is generally optimistic, as the ability to protest and work for change remains in place, even as right-wing governments opposed to liberal politics are gaining traction.
Self-Determination and Dignity
In all his case studies, Garton Ash emphasizes the ways in which communist regimes deprived their citizens of choices, self-expression, and individual dignity. In June 1989, Polish citizens lined up to vote, some for the first time, because they could finally reject their existing government in a formal way. The juxtaposition of First Communion and first election After the fall of the Berlin Wall, East German citizens expressed honest opinions about the national past and their hopes for the future. Garton Ash recalls that “unification was happening from below. It happened because many people on all sides wanted it to happen” (67). This is in stark contrast to the Berlin wall, which appeared almost overnight and produced profound psychological and personal hardship in the GDR, often described as “wall sickness” (57). The destruction of this barrier is a profound symbol of freedom and individual choice.
In Czechoslovakia, Garton Ash closely identifies the revolution with the theater were the Civic Forum met. Many of the participants in the Forum were, like Havel, formerly repressed intellectuals and artists, now turning their talents to politics and the future of their nation. Garton Ash calls Havel “director, playwright, stage-manager and leading actor in this, his greatest play” suggesting that this national revival is inherently artistic and expressive (69). The primacy of youth politics and the enthusiasm of the crowd, including open calls for governmental change, makes this a play where the audience are also actors finding their voices. This is expressed most poignantly in the anecdote about Marta Kubišová the folk singer who performs for the Civic Forum after decades of silence due to her support for the Prague Spring. The Civic Forum, home to a plurality of voices and political persuasions, becomes the basis for a new government. Its pluralism and open debate are part of what make Czechoslovakia’s revolution “joyful” (115).
In his long-term assessment of communism’s moral and political failures, Garton Ash stresses the importance of “semantic occupation” that is, state control of media and personal expression. Though Garton Ash adopts a mocking tone about his own experience with the Polish censor, the Party’s media monopoly and ability to ban writers had significant impacts on political land cultural lie. This was a key source of grievance in 1989, as participation in the mandatory public language of official ideology “managed to implicate” every citizen in the system they despised (123). Garton Ash notes that this made calls for personal expression and participation in public protest deeply meaningful for all citizens. The inherent immorality of communism lay in its opposition to such honesty and transparency. In the afterword, Garton Ash suggests that citizens now feel a n “inequality of attention and respect” from their governments, and this explains the rise of populism, as liberalism is identified entirely with the pursuit of economic success rather than concern for the individual (155-56). Garton Ash suggests that an honest reckoning with these failures and the ongoing need for reform will be key to maintaining the legacy of 1989 in the region.
Contingency and Personality as Driving Factors in History
Throughout the work, Garton Ash admits that history’s progress is often unpredictable, not linear, and dependent on individual initiative. The leaders of Solidarity, for example, were generally pessimistic about the June 1989 elections and did not expect them to be a watershed moment signifying the extent of their popular support. Wałęsa and other leaders had planned for a very gradual transition to free elections over multiple years. Instead, the sweep of the elections and deepening political crisis brought them to power. But to explain Solidarity’s rise also requires attention to individuals. Beyond Wałęsa ’s personal charisma and increasing international celebrity, Garton Ash also points to the historical coincidence that the world’s first Polish pope, John Paul II, was an open supporter of Solidarity, and his visit to Poland in 1979 helped catalyze dissatisfaction with the regime.
In the chapter on Czechoslovakia and the Civic Forum, Garton Ash assigns particular weight to Havel’s personality and character, as well as spontaneous student leadership. The university protests that broke out in November became the impetus for a broader movement—Havel is brought into action by these events, not because he knew he was destined to lead the new nation. But soon after this Havel becomes the event’s “director” even urging Garton Ash himself to repeat his line about a revolution in ten days for the camera. Havel’s personal magnetism and energy help give the Civic Forum its character, as he is “laughing as if he made revolutions every week” (109). He also notes that Czechoslovakia’s revolution came later, so that its participants had the chance to learn from prior examples when attempting to shape their own trajectory.
The international response to 1989, specifically the Soviet response, was key to the success of these revolutions, as prior attempts at reform had been crushed by Soviet and Warsaw Pact military intervention. Gorbachev’s commitment to reform within the Soviet Union extended to his unwillingness to use force and defend the Brezhnev Doctrine. As a younger man, Gorbachev was inspired and impressed with the Prague Spring and its reform agenda. Garton Ash notes that this had significant consequences, as communist leaders in Hungary and Poland could not depend on external support to maintain power. If 1989 is a drama, some of the key protagonists drove the plot because of their global and international prominence and access to meaningful political and military power.
Contingency remains a potent force in shaping the region’s events as Garton Ash re-evaluates the past and considers the future in his 2019 afterword. He admits that it was unforeseeable in 1989 that Viktor Orbán would become an autocratic leader of a Hungary vehemently opposed to liberal democracy and dedicated to one-party rule. When evaluating the historical roots of the new populist trends, Garton Ash cites recent political and economic shocks, such as the 2008 recession and the 2015 refugee crisis. While the path to EU membership for post-communist states was clearly defined, their domestic responses to these paradigm-shifting global events would depend on a host of other factors. The Garton Ash of 2019 admits that democracy is not destiny, and history does not have a pre-determined logic where the morally upright figures win.
Unlock all 57 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 9,150+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features: