Оригинал материала
THE KARAT COALITION SPEAKS
Women Benefit Less from Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe
by Katalin Medvedev
Katalin Medvedev currently teaches in the English Department at the University of Eotvos Lorand Pedagogical College. She received a B.A. from the University of Northern Iowa in Women's Studies, as well as a Certificate in Women's Studies and Leadership at George Washington University. She has extensive experience in the women's movement. In 1996, during her training period in the "Committee on Women's International Politics" in Washington, she helped to restructure programs which explore questions of international politics, and she published a series of essays in the Hungarian feminist newspaper "Noszemely", in addition to numerous articles in the Hungarian women's journal "Kisasszony" on women's health, women in the mass media and the achievements of women. In 1999 Katalin took part in the panel for recommendations from Central and Eastern Europe entitled "Women and the Establishment of Peace in the Balkans" as part of the "Beijing + 5" session. Katalin is a member of the International Federation of Journalists, the Hungarian Federation of Journalists (the section on women and the media), the feminist network "Hirnok" and the KARAT-Coalition.
The changes resulting from the fall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe have shown that the word "democracy" holds very different meanings for men and for women. In the region's struggle to adopt Western models andmake the transition into a market economy, women have turned out to be the "losers." They were asked to sacrifice numerous rights which they counted on and which in fact could be realized under the communist regime. These rights included full-time employment, participation (even if in appearance only) in high-level politics and government, and childcare. The unexpected turn of events caught women unawares, with no opportunity to voice their political or personal opinions on the matter. In any case, this was not what they deserved, and it certainly was not what they had expected. The Communist system deprived men and women alike of political and economic independence. The public and private life of members of both sexes was under the control of the government, for which reason strong partnership between them developed as a counterbalance to the totalitarian regime. For the sake of survival women and men lived in interdependence, with the full agreement of both parties. Women played a positive and important, if somewhat traditional role in Society. Unfortunately, contrary to widespread Western opinion, the actual role of women in Communist countries did not differ much from their role in the patriarchal society which existed before the Second World War.
Since 1989 the citizens of the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe have spoken out against patriarchy on the government level, but have overlooked patriarchy in its most elemental and fundamental form -- in everyday life and family custom. No public discussion was initiated on the gender aspects of the changes taking place and the consequences, although the latter were considerable. Nor was it even said that the communist understanding of a woman's sole moral role and destiny -- to be a wife, mother, and friend -- could not and should not be preserved under the new democracy. In the new economic, social and political reality, the rules of the game changes drastically, forcing the players to work out new strategies. But on what resources, on what deep-rooted democratic traditions can women draw? They practically do not exist. Women were not taught or brought up in a spirit of independent thinking. They were not taught to value economic and emotional independence.
Under the communist regime, forcing people into tight-kniw families was a basic means of government control. The creation of a family had an economic motivation, in the sense that social policy and benefits favored those who were in families. If a woman decided not to marry, she became an outcast, not only socially but in economic terms as well. The existence of rape, sexual discrimination and other things was not even acknowledged, and when such events were serious enough to gain public attention, they were viewed as isolated examples. It was as though they had no relationship to the system. The countries of the region had so civil society and no community organizations looking specifically at women's problems. Official communist propaganda refused even to acknowledge the existence of such problems.
The Communist system left a difficult legacy to men and to women. Fundamental equality of the sexes was an empty claim. Nor did any opportunity exist for the development of gender equality. But from the woman's point of view, the post-1989 democratic reforms did not give her the same advantages as they did to men. The only real change was that now they were oppressed not by a totalitarian government, but by a totalitarian market economy.
Women have lost much more than they have gained. Social welfare spending has been drastically reduced. Food stamps have been cut to the minimum. Transportation assistance has been practically eliminated. With the deficit, childcare centers were the first public services which local authorities cut. Public health depends more and more on private means and is directed by the laws of supply and demand. Women's unemployment grows at the same rate as cuts in jobs in government enterprises and institutions. Prostitution and trafficking in women have sharply increased. The list is too long to enumerate here.
Participation in Politics
Judging by appearances, women boasted a higher political and administrative status in "Communist" countries than in Western ones. But appearances can be deceiving. Although women occupied 20-30 percent of elected positions, not one of the female deputies kept her promise to improve the life of other women. They did not have any programs of their own, nor did they ever act as the driving force behind any significant or notable bills. Although physically present in politics, these women constituted little more than routine proof of the absence of a woman's public persona. They had neither independence nor a sense of purpose.
At the same time, when discussing the situation of women in post-Communist democracies, it is important to note that none of the women in this region had to fight for their right to be elected, or for so-called "Communist privileges." These privileges were for the most part imported straight out of the Soviet Union and indiscriminately applied in all of the Eastern Block countries. Under these circumstances it is hardly surprising that women never had to master the "art" of politicking. They did not assimilate even the most elementary skills required for participation in the political process. Women were forced to transition into post-communist democratic politics before they had developed their own political tradition and perspectives. Needless to say, the consequences have been serious and are still making themselves felt. Fortunately, the fall of the Communist regime has flushed out of politics those deputies controlled by the Party ("pocket Deputies"). But as encouraging as this may be, we cannot ignore the hard fact that the advent of democracy occasioned a revival of the old, pre-war ideology, which dictates that women should not get mixed up in politics. Women who made it into Parliament on the party ballot failed even to make reference to contemporary feminist concerns. Indeed, they hastened to make assurances that absolutely no distinction exists between a male and female style of politics. Their decisions are guided by party loyalties alone. For this reason it is imperative that we devise a system which allows us to evaluate the performance of parliamentarians, men and women, based on how they have voted on women's questions, and to publish our findings in the mass media. Then women will see for themselves how well each deputy represents their interests. [....] We need to encourage women on all levels of the decision-making process, and we need ensure that these women act on the political interests of their constituents and look after their needs. This way we can establish the basis for a real, effective decision-making process which takes into account, along with everything else, the interests of women.
Employment and Social Welfare
Another aspect of the woman's life in Central and Eastern Europe which was as misunderstood as it was envied by the West was the unusually high employment rate of women under the Communist regime. In the 1980s, 95 percent of women in the region were employed. But a closer look at these figures reveals that women were employed, on the whole, in unskilled, monotonous mechanical work (women were the overwhelming majority in such professions). They dominated teaching, childcare and every sort of clerical profession and earned smaller salaries than men. Obligatory employment was one of the most tightly regulated methods of social control under the Communist regime. Not only were the unemployed likened to criminals, but they were also refused social welfare. To receive social welfare, it was not enough to be a citizen -- you also had to be employed.
The most notable "Communist privilege" from which women benefited was paid maternity leave. But it was not because women were granted a higher social status or because homemaking was considered an important and productive occupation that this system was established. Indeed, women's contribution in the workplace was less valued than that of men. Women's salaries lagged far behind men's salaries in all of Eastern Europe. Maternity leave was introduced thanks solely to economic necessity. From a financial standpoint it was much more profitable for the government to dispense scanty amounts of aid than to create jobs specially for women with small children. In other words, due to their reproductive capacities, women involuntarily contributed to their own devaluation. On the other hand, this arrangement at the very least guaranteed job security. (Employers were required to give women returning from maternity leave their former positions, or one analogous to it.) By now we remember this with nostalgia. Moreover, when there were staff or workforce reductions, it was not possible simply to dismiss women. That would not have stood in accordance with official propaganda. By 1990, when the new political rhetoric no longer required such declarative commitments, women became the first victims of employment downsizing. Political institutions safeguarding the interests of women disappeared instantaneously -- which demonstrates that they never actually existed.