RALF DAHRENDORF
521
your government continued to subsidize "good" films and "classical" books,
people will prefer to see cheap romance and read trash, or no longer read at
all
The reason is simple, and important in this context.
As
one looks at our
world from a distance, one would like to see the objectives in which one be–
lieves, achieved directly and without detour or distraction. Perhaps what you
call Social Democracy is an example of such an objective. But short of the
horror of a "benevolent" dictatorship, this is not the way the world works. At
least open societies do not work that way. Whether we like it or not, the
pendulum swing from one side to the other - and it need not swing all the
way from one extreme to the other - is the more likely rhythm of change.
After the victory of Social Democracy in the OECD world, people wanted a
new splurge of individualism, of innovation and initiative, and ofconsumerism.
They elected Margaret Thatcher prime minister of Britain, and Ronald
Reagan president of the United States, and even their "socialist" leaders such
as the prime ministers of Spain and Australia and New Zealand turned out to
be what some called "left Thatcherites."
Now, at the beginning of the 1990s, the time may have come for us to
turn back from the provisions party to the entitlements party, that is, from
obsession with economic growth to recognition of the requirements of
citizenship. Even the Republican president of the United States has promised
a "kinder, gentler America," and in Europe the change of mood is unmistak–
able.
At the same time, it would not be surprising if your compatriots and
your neighbors want to have their share ofWestern individualism, including
consumerism and all that, before they remember the social needs of those
who will be left behind. Some may regret this, but it is the price you pay for
decades of glum and gray collectivism. I wish you well in your attempt to
stem the tide of trash and glitter, but I suspect that it will sweep you away.
Yours will be a minority position for a while, and as you undoubtedly per–
ceive, I do not feel very sorry for you. At least I do not feel sorry as long as
the swing of the pendulum remains contained by the limits of the open soci–
ety. In practice, this means that it must be possible to vote Balcerowicz out of
office (not too soon, I hope; in eight years' time perhaps) and replace him by
a more Social Democratic politician.
This takes me back again to your question of political parties and their
social bases. Who is going to support what in the years to come? What
political structures are going to emerge from the collapse of the Communist
monopoly? The question has vexing dimensions, for while it it clear that the
party systems of the European democracies, and of North America for that
matter, would sit uneasily on the post-Communist countries, your predica–
ment reminds us of the fact that our own parties are out of date and out of
tune with the times. The German experience has made the point perfectly.
