Exactly 27 years ago, on November 17, 1989, events began in Czechoslovakia, which will later go down in history under the name "Velvet Revolution". This is the name given to the mass demonstrations of people in Prague and throughout the Czech Republic - at the peak of the protests, about 700,000 (according to other estimates - up to 1,000,000) protesters took to the streets of Prague. Events were relatively bloodless, so the revolution is called "velvet".

The protesters achieved from the authorities of the then Czechoslovakia the complete fulfillment of all their demands - the resignation of President Gustav Husak and the entire communist government, as well as the country's turn towards a Western-style democracy.

Under the cut - a photo story about those events.

02. It all started at the end of October 1989 with the strikes of Czech workers - the largest strike of those days is considered a political demonstration on the day of the Czechoslovak national holiday on October 28 - on that day, almost 100,000 people took to the streets of Prague. During the suppression of the demonstration, a student died, whose death served as a new pretext for further intensifying the demonstrations.

Very famous photo- workers of one of the Czech enterprises are watching the demonstrations through the factory windows:

03. The decisive impetus to the events of the "Velvet Revolution" was the performance of the Prague students, which took place on November 17 - about 15,000 students went to a demonstration in memory of the events of 1939 - at that time the Nazi occupation forces closed Czech universities and sent Czech students and teachers to concentration camps ... Czech students in 1989 went to a demonstration against the Communist Party - believing that it was doing about the same as the Nazis.

The photo shows the confrontation between the Prague students and the police in those days.

04. Thousands of participants in the student meeting headed to the center of Prague towards Wenceslas Square. The demonstration was considered unsanctioned - the columns of students were stopped by police in the area of ​​Vysehradskaya Street.

In the photo there is a student column and policemen. The police, by the way, are equipped quite well even by modern standards - helmets with neck protection and transparent visors, light transparent shields, batons. The truncheons, by the way, apparently, are not rubber, but are made of something like plastic.

05. The demonstration took place quite peacefully, the protesters chanted, addressing the police: "Your task is to protect us", "we are unarmed." However, in the end, the demonstration was dispersed, many of the protesters were severely beaten. According to an investigation conducted in 1990, on November 17, more than 500 people were injured during the dispersal of the demonstration.

In the photo - brutal police arrests during the "Velvet Revolution":

06. There were also policemen in disguise in the crowd of protesters - they identified informal leaders of protests and just active protesters and also detained them:

07. The demonstrators and their sympathizers in Prague perceived the incident as the unwillingness of the authorities to start a dialogue in society. Rumors began to spread among the people that the police intervention had resulted in casualties among the demonstrators, sparking a new wave of protests against communist regime.

And here is the meeting of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in those days:

08. The famous Prague cafes of those times - people are actively discussing the events in the country, in the photo - the Slavia cafe, this is the oldest cafe in Prague from now operating, it was opened in 1881.

09. In the twenties of November about half a million people came out to the central streets of Prague - people demanded changes in the country, and above all - the removal of the Communist Party from power. The largest number of citizens gathered on November 25 and 26 at the Letenské Pole in Prague - about 700,000 people, according to other estimates - up to a million.

10.On 27 October, a large two-hour strike was held in the country - it lasted from 12 noon to 14 noon, and the signal for it was the signal of a siren. Around these days, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia made concessions to the protesters and canceled a paragraph in the law that declared the primacy of the Communist Party on all issues.

Protesters on the streets of Prague:

11. Police and police cordons on Prague streets:

12. Military equipment on the streets of the city. As far as I know, they were not going to use it, they drove in just to intimidate the protesters.

14. Vaclav Havel speaks with one of the protesters during the "Velvet Revolution". On December 29, 1989, he will become president of the new democratic Czech Republic.

The concept of the "velvet revolution" emerged during the democratic transition process in Central and Eastern Europe during the collapse of the communist system. It was about a peaceful transition of power from a one-party regime to the opposition. This peaceful transition presupposed (in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary) a dialogue between the authorities and the opposition (expressed in the so-called Round Tables). As for the CIS states (Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan), the similarity with the East European model is incomplete: there is no such essential element of the transfer of power as the search for consensus and mutual agreements. In this regard, the situation should be defined rather as a coup, that is, the seizure of power by the opposition on a non-legal basis.

"Velvet revolution" in the Czech Republic

In "velvet revolutions" there are many differences (in a specific situation, the balance of power, incentive reasons). But there are also common features. These include: a conflict of legitimacy and legality, unlawful transfer of power - an actual coup d'etat, supported by the organization of a mass movement in order to impart legitimacy (primarily youth); change of generations of the elite with the removal of the old party nomenclature; declaration of liberal economic reforms as an alternative to previous policies; pronounced nationalism; orientation of new political regimes towards the European Union and NATO, revision of relations with Russia in domestic and foreign policy.

Attention is drawn to the synchronicity of the revolutions, the belonging of countries to a certain region, the significant similarity of implementation technologies, which suggests the possibility of external influences. However, it is clear that to reduce the whole matter to them means to significantly simplify it.

The main reason for revolutions is the inefficiency and loss of legitimacy of regimes in the context of globalization, used (by the internal opposition and external forces) to change the ruling elite (and generations of leaders) in the post-Soviet space. This made it possible to implement a new technology of coups. Its novelty is determined by the combination of a massive information campaign aimed at discrediting the old government with the simultaneous imposition of democratic procedures on it that it cannot bypass by traditional measures (for example, the use of administrative resources) in the context of a targeted mobilization of opposition supporters.

The coming of the opposition to power in these conditions is legitimized as a defense of democracy from its opponents.

It is difficult to talk about power as a whole, since it is not united (a more conservative and liberal wing is represented in it). The conclusions are in the desire to prevent such a scenario through targeted systemic mobilization. It is known that in order to defeat the revolution, it is necessary to "lead" it.

This requires leverage and tools of influence that surpass the traditional practice of administrative resources, in particular - purposeful social politics, conducting a dialogue with political forces, their grouping in a direction favorable to the elite (creation of political parties, social movements, changing the electoral system). But the main resource of power is its effectiveness and the ability to self-reform in the face of extremely deep and rapid changes in the world.

As a result of such a coup, if it takes place, power will pass not to the liberals, but rather to the socialist-oriented (left) elements of the political spectrum. This will happen when authoritarian modernization loses its dynamism and enters the stage of political inertia. At this stage, other factors may come into play, from oil prices to elite divisions.

The velvet revolution is a typical product of a post-industrial society, when imitation of a riot is often more effective than the riot itself. In classical totalitarian states, such tactics are not effective, it is too easy to suppress such a "revolution" in real blood. A brilliant example is the Prague Spring, one of the first velvet revolutions in Czechoslovakia, instantly crushed by Soviet tanks.

Paris of 1968 was also a classic “velvet revolution” that failed. On the other hand, it was by the “velvet revolution” method that the completely dictatorial semi-fascist regime in Portugal was overthrown in those same years. Nonviolent resistance methods have evolved and improved over the past forty years. And they achieved their triumph in 1991. Most of the popular unrest, including Atmoda, developed according to the same pattern. Strong dissatisfaction with the power of a part of the population, the emergence of an alternative center of power, where all dissenting people flock, the interception of the official power by the alternative center, the transition to the side of the new power of the police and the army, and then elections, which finally end the period of dual power.

Thus, we examined the concept of the "velvet revolution" and gave several vivid examples of its application in European states.

It should also be noted that Czechoslovakia, being the most structurally changeable European state, experienced several "velvet revolutions" that changed domestic policy states and made some serious foreign amendments.

The process of reforming the communist regime in Czechoslovakia in 1989 under the pressure of popular protests was bloodless, which is why it was called the "velvet revolution".

It began exactly a quarter of a century ago, when thousands of university students gathered in Prague for a demonstration to mark International Students' Day. The peaceful action ended in violence - the police blocked and severely beat the students who took part in the demonstration. That dispersal gave rise to a series of new performances - not only in the capital, but also in other cities. On November 19, the Civic Forum movement was formed in Prague, which was joined by dissidents, church representatives, cultural figures and students. Human rights activist and playwright Vaclav Havel became its informal leader.

Velvet revolution and velvet divorce

The strength and gains of the protests grew every day. On November 24, the entire top of the Communist Party, including its general secretary Milos Jakesh, resigned. And soon one of the most repressive communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe was overthrown. On December 29, opposition leader Vaclav Havel was elected president of a country whose years were already numbered.

For Czechoslovakia, the collapse of the communist regime was only a transitional stage. The Velvet Revolution was followed by the Velvet Divorce. In 1992, due to the growing disagreements between politicians on ethnic grounds, the parliament decided to divide the country. Since January 1, 1993, there are two independent states: Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Today, among the citizens of these countries, the attitude towards the events of the fall of 1989 and their consequences is ambiguous. Recent opinion polls have shown that only about 60% of Czechs and 50% of Slovaks have a positive attitude towards them.

Velvet revolution: development of events

The "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia - the most bloodless in the former socialist countries - began with the dispersal of a peaceful demonstration of students on their way to Prague Castle. Government forces blocked the streets, and when the command "Turn left!" Was heard from the armored personnel carrier, someone from the crowd shouted: "We will never turn left again." Learning about 38 wounded students, the whole country took to the streets; On November 25, 750,000 people gathered at the Prague stadium demanding change.

In Czechoslovakia, a few months after the fall of the communist regime, an investigation was carried out into the events of November 17, because, according to the press, one of the students died. It was found that all the initial stages of the unrest were carried out by the Czech state security. Both the demonstration and its suppression were part of the plan, and the "deceased student" turned out to be quite a living security officer. This was confirmed by the head of the intelligence department of Czechoslovakia, General Alois Lorenz, adding, however, that they did not cope with their task: as a result of the revolution, they were supposed to put a liberal communist in power, but events got out of control.

Velvet revolution: the origin of the name

Where the name "Velvet Revolution" came from is not completely known. Peter Pithart claims that the name was coined by foreign journalists. According to other information, the author of the term was the press secretary of the Civil Forum Rita Klimova (the first wife of Zdenek Mlynarz, in 1990-1991 the Ambassador of Czechoslovakia to the United States).

In Slovakia, this term was not used: from the beginning of the events the name “Gentle Revolution” was used. This expression in the context of “That your revolution is so different, so tender” was first publicly used by Vladimir Minach in a television conversation with students in November 1989.

The term "Velvet Revolution" is used in other Eastern European countries, where in the late 1980s - early 1990s there was a bloodless transition from a socialist system to a liberal one. Subsequently, the term "Velvet Revolution" began to be used to refer to a non-violent revolution in general. Today this term is being replaced by a more popular one - "Color revolution".

Expression " velvet revolution"appeared in the late 1980s - early 1990s. It does not fully reflect the nature of the events described in social sciences the term "revolution". This term always means qualitative, fundamental, profound changes in the social, economic and political spheres that lead to the transformation of the entire public life, changing the model of the structure of society.

What it is?

"Velvet revolution" - then common name processes that took place in the states of Central and Eastern Europe in the period from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 has become a kind of their symbol.

These political upheavals were named "velvet revolution" because in most states they were carried out bloodlessly (except for Romania, where an armed uprising and unauthorized reprisals against N. Ceausescu, a former dictator, and his wife) took place. Events everywhere except Yugoslavia happened relatively quickly, almost instantly. At first glance, the similarity of their scripts and coincidence in time is surprising. However, let's look at the reasons and essence of these upheavals - and we will see that these coincidences are not accidental. This article will give a brief definition of the term "velvet revolution" and will help to understand its causes.

The events and processes that took place in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and early 90s are of interest to politicians, scientists, and the general public. What are the reasons for the revolution? And what is their essence? Let's try to answer these questions. The first in a whole series of similar political events in Europe was the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia. Let's start with her.

Events in Czechoslovakia

In November 1989, fundamental changes took place in Czechoslovakia. The "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia led to the bloodless overthrow of the communist regime as a result of protests. The decisive impetus was a student demonstration organized on November 17 in memory of Jan Opletal, a Czech student who died during the protests against the Nazi occupation of the state. As a result of the events of November 17, more than 500 people were injured.

On November 20, students went on strike and mass demonstrations began in many cities. On November 24, the first secretary and some other leaders of the country's communist party resigned. On November 26, a grand rally took place in the center of Prague, which was attended by about 700 thousand people. On November 29, parliament revoked the constitutional clause on the leadership of the Communist Party. On December 29, 1989, Alexander Dubcek was elected Chairman of Parliament, and Vaclav Havel was elected President of Czechoslovakia. The reasons for the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia and other countries will be described below. We will also get acquainted with the opinions of authoritative experts.

Causes of the "Velvet Revolution"

What are the reasons for such a radical breakdown of the social system? A number of scientists (for example, V.K.Volkov) see the internal objective reasons for the 1989 revolution in the gap between industrial relations... Totalitarian or authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes became an obstacle to the scientific, technical and economic progress of countries, hindered the integration process even within the CMEA. Almost half a century of experience of the countries of Southeast and Central Europe has shown that they are far behind the advanced capitalist states, even those with whom they were once on the same level. For Czechoslovakia and Hungary, this is a comparison with Austria, for the GDR - with the FRG, for Bulgaria - with Greece. The GDR, leading in the CMEA, according to the UN, in 1987 in terms of GPP per capita was only 17th in the world, Czechoslovakia - 25th, the USSR - 30th. The gap in living standards, quality health care, social security, culture and education.

The lagging behind the countries of Eastern Europe began to acquire a staging character. The control system with centralized rigid planning, as well as supermonopoly, the so-called command-administrative system, gave rise to inefficiency of production, its decay. This became especially noticeable in the 1950s and 1980s, when a new stage of scientific and technological revolution was delayed in these countries, which brought Western Europe and the United States to a new, "postindustrial" level of development. Gradually, towards the end of the 70s, a tendency began to turn the socialist world into a secondary socio-political and economic strength on the world stage. Only in the military-strategic area did he retain a strong position, and even then mainly because of the military potential of the USSR.

National factor

Another powerful factor that brought about the "Velvet Revolution" of 1989 was the national one. National pride, as a rule, was hurt by the fact that the authoritarian-bureaucratic regime resembled the Soviet one. The tactless actions of the Soviet leadership and representatives of the USSR in these countries, their political mistakes, acted in the same direction. A similar thing was observed in 1948, after the break in relations between the USSR and Yugoslavia (which later resulted in the "Velvet Revolution" in Yugoslavia), during litigation on the model of the Moscow pre-war, etc. The leadership of the ruling parties, in turn, adopting the dogmatic experience of the USSR, contributed to the change of local regimes according to the Soviet type. All this gave rise to the feeling that such a system was imposed from the outside. This was facilitated by the intervention of the USSR leadership in the events that took place in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968 (later the "Velvet Revolution" took place in Hungary and Czechoslovakia). The idea of ​​the "Brezhnev doctrine", that is, limited sovereignty, was consolidated in the minds of people. Majority of the population, comparing economic situation his country with the position of neighbors in the West, unwittingly began to link together political and economic problems. Infringement of national feelings, socio-political dissatisfaction exerted their influence in one direction. As a result, crises began. On June 17, 1953, a crisis occurred in the GDR, in 1956 in Hungary, in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, and in Poland it occurred repeatedly in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They did not, however, have a positive resolution. These crises only contributed to the discrediting of existing regimes, the accumulation of so-called ideological shifts that usually precede political changes, and the creation of a negative assessment of the parties in power.

Influence of the USSR

At the same time, they showed why the authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes were stable - they belonged to the OVD, to the "socialist community", and were under pressure from the leadership of the USSR. Any criticism existing reality, any attempts to make adjustments to the theory of Marxism from the standpoint of creative understanding, taking into account the existing reality, were declared "revisionism", "ideological sabotage", etc. The lack of pluralism in the spiritual sphere, uniformity in culture and ideology led to ambiguity, political passivity of the population, conformism that corrupted the personality morally. This, of course, could not be reconciled to progressive intellectual and creative forces.

Weakness of political parties

Increasingly, revolutionary situations began to arise in the countries of Eastern Europe. Observing how the restructuring takes place in these countries, I expected similar reforms in their homeland. However, at the decisive moment, the weakness of the subjective factor came to light, namely the lack of mature political parties capable of implementing major changes... For a long time of their uncontrolled rule, the ruling parties have lost their creative streak, the ability to renew themselves. Lost their political character, which became just a continuation of the state bureaucratic machine, more and more lost contact with the people. These parties did not trust the intelligentsia, they did not pay enough attention to young people, they could not find a common language with them. Their politics lost the confidence of the population, especially after the leadership was increasingly corroded by corruption, personal enrichment began to flourish, and moral guidelines were lost. It is worth noting the repression against the dissatisfied, "dissidents", which were practiced in Bulgaria, Romania, the German Democratic Republic and other countries.

The seemingly powerful and monopoly ruling parties, having separated from the state apparatus, gradually began to fall apart. The disputes that began about the past (the opposition considered the Communist parties to be responsible for the crisis), the struggle between the "reformers" and "conservatives" within them - all this paralyzed the activities of these parties to a certain extent, they gradually lost their combat effectiveness. And even in such conditions, when the political struggle was greatly aggravated, they still hoped that they had a monopoly on power, but they miscalculated.

Was it possible to avoid these events?

Is the "velvet revolution" inevitable? It could hardly have been avoided. This is primarily due to internal reasons, which we have already mentioned. What happened in Eastern Europe is largely the result of the imposed model of socialism, the lack of freedom for development.

The perestroika that began in the USSR seemed to give an impetus for socialist renewal. But many leaders of the countries of Eastern Europe could not understand the urgent need for a radical reorganization of the whole society, they were unable to receive the signals sent by the time itself. Accustomed only to receiving instructions from above, the party masses found themselves disoriented in this situation.

Why didn't the leadership of the USSR intervene?

But why did not the Soviet leadership, anticipating imminent changes in the countries of Eastern Europe, intervene in the situation and remove from power the former leaders, who, with their conservative actions, only increased the discontent of the population?

Firstly, there could be no question of forceful pressure on these states after the events of April 1985, the withdrawal Soviet army from Afghanistan and a declaration of freedom of choice. This was clear to the opposition and the leadership of the countries of Eastern Europe. Some were disappointed by this circumstance, others were inspired by it.

Secondly, at multilateral and bilateral negotiations and meetings between 1986 and 1989, the leadership of the USSR has repeatedly declared the pernicious nature of stagnation. But how did you react to this? Most of the heads of state in their actions did not show a desire for change, preferring to carry out only the very minimum of necessary changes, which did not affect the whole mechanism of the system of power that had developed in these countries. Thus, the leadership of the BKP only in words welcomed the perestroika in the USSR, trying to preserve the current regime of personal power with the help of many shake-ups in the country. The heads of the CPC (M. Yakesh) and the SED (E. Honecker) resisted the changes, trying to limit them to hopes that allegedly perestroika in the USSR was doomed to fail, the influence of the Soviet example. They still hoped that, given a relatively good standard of living, they could do without serious reforms for the time being.

First, in a narrow composition, and then with the participation of all representatives of the Politburo of the SED, on October 7, 1989, in response to the arguments put forward by Mikhail Gorbachev that it was necessary to urgently take the initiative into their own hands, the head of the GDR said that it was not worth teaching them live when there is "not even salt" in the stores of the USSR. The people in the same evening went out into the street, initiating the collapse of the GDR. N. Ceausescu in Romania stained himself with blood, betting on repression. And where the reforms took place with the preservation former structures and did not lead to pluralism, real democracy and the market, they only contributed to uncontrolled processes and decay.

It became clear that without the military intervention of the USSR, without its safety net on the side of the current regimes, their stability margin turned out to be small in practice. It is also necessary to take into account the psychological moods of citizens, which played a big role, since people wanted change.

The parliamentary system has finally stabilized in the CEE states. In none of them was the strong power of the president established, a presidential republic did not emerge. The political elite believed that after a totalitarian period, such a power could slow down the progress of the democratic process. V. Havel in Czechoslovakia, L. Walesa in Poland, J. Zhelev in Bulgaria tried to strengthen the presidential power, but public opinion and parliaments opposed this. The President did not define anywhere economic policy and did not take responsibility for its implementation, that is, he was not the head of the executive branch.

The parliament holds the full power, the executive power belongs to the government. The composition of the latter is approved by the parliament and monitors its activities, adopts the state budget and the law. Free presidential and parliamentary elections were a manifestation of democracy.

What forces came to power?

In almost all CEE states (except the Czech Republic), power passed painlessly from one hand to another. In Poland, this happened in 1993, the "velvet revolution" in Bulgaria caused the transfer of power in 1994, and in Romania in 1996.

In Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary, the left came to power, in Romania - the right. Soon after the "Velvet Revolution" in Poland, the Union of Left Centrist Forces won the parliamentary elections in 1993, and in 1995 A. Kwasniewski, its leader, won the presidential elections. In June 1994, the Hungarian Socialist Party won the parliamentary elections, D. Horn, its leader, headed the new social-liberal government. At the end of 1994, the Socialists of Bulgaria received 125 out of 240 seats in parliament as a result of elections.

In November 1996, power in Romania passed to the center-right. E. Constantinescu became president. In 1992-1996, the Democratic Party held power in Albania.

Political situation towards the end of the 1990s

However, the situation soon changed. The September 1997 elections were won by the right-wing Solidarity Action Action Party. In Bulgaria in April of the same year, the right-wing forces also won the parliamentary elections. In Slovakia, in May 1999, the first presidential election was won by R. Schuster, a representative of the Democratic Coalition. In Romania, after the elections in December 2000, I. Iliescu, the leader of the Socialist Party, returned to the presidency.

V. Havel remains In 1996, during the parliamentary elections, the Czech people deprived V. Klaus, the prime minister, of support. He lost his post at the end of 1997.

Formation began new structure society, which was facilitated by political freedoms, the emerging market, high activity of the population. Political pluralism is becoming a reality. For example, in Poland by this time there were about 300 parties and various organizations - social democratic, liberal, Christian democratic. Separate pre-war parties were revived, for example, the National Tsaranist Party, which existed in Romania.

However, despite some democratization, there are still manifestations of "hidden authoritarianism", which is expressed in the highly personified politics and the style of state administration. The growing monarchist sentiments in a number of countries (for example, Bulgaria) are indicative. Former King Mihai was restored to his citizenship at the beginning of 1997.

Velvet revolutions are artificial revolutions, the result of the impact of modern political technologies applied to countries with an unstable elite and weak historical traditions sovereignty.

As a rule, velvet revolutions are expressed in mass demonstrations, the reason for which is the alleged violation of democratic procedures. The result of the velvet revolutions is a long-term decline in production in the country, a deterioration investment climate, constant rotation of elites, government leapfrog, accompanied by repeated redistribution and plundering of resources and assets, loss of confidence of the masses in democratic procedures, cynicism, desovereignization of the country, falling into complete dependence on other states, on Western grants and loans, on foundations, NGOs and NGOs , the establishment of a regime of controlled democracy in the country. velvet revolution political europe

The phrase "velvet revolution", which came into use in the late 1980s - early 1990s, strictly speaking, does not fully reflect the true nature of the processes that social sciences described by the term "revolution". The latter always denotes deep, fundamental, qualitative changes in the economic, social, political spheres, leading to a radical transformation of the entire life of society, to a change in the model of social structure.

"Velvet revolutions" is a generalized name for the processes that took place in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s - early 1990s, when the crisis of the world socialist system turned into the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, CMEA and other supranational structures, the collapse of the communist regimes, and then the USSR itself, the nucleus, the systemic and semantic center of world socialism.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 became a kind of symbol of these changes. These political coups got their name because in most countries the so-called. "People's democracy", they took place bloodlessly, in a relatively peaceful way (with the exception of Romania, where they resulted in an armed uprising and reprisals without trial and investigation over the former dictator N. Ceausescu and his wife).

The coups in all socialist European countries without exception, except for Yugoslavia, took place relatively quickly, almost instantly, in accordance with the notorious "domino principle".

At first glance, the coincidence in time and the similarity of the scenarios of "revolutions" should be surprising, because the socialist countries of Eastern and Central Europe were noticeably different from each other and the level of economic development, and socio-class composition, and traditions. Economically developed Czechoslovakia had more in common with neighboring Austria than with seemingly ideologically related Albania - the poorest country in Europe, or agrarian Bulgaria. The market elements that Josip Broz Tito introduced into the Yugoslav economy made it different from National economy Romania based on hard planning.

Although the population of all countries of the socialist camp experienced problems common to all states with a planned economy and an authoritarian style of government, the standard of living in some of them was quite high, much higher than in the "metropolis". And it is unlikely that thousands of people took to the streets because of a sense of social protest and unbearably harsh living conditions.

The fact that all "velvet revolutions" are so different states occurred almost simultaneously and practically according to the same scenario, indicates that they were not the result of internal social contradictions, but exclusively the result of outside interference.

In each of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, a specific situation developed, but the mechanism of destruction was the same everywhere. Back in June 1982, US President R. Reagan and Pope John Paul II in a secret meeting discussed how to accelerate the process of destruction of the socialist camp. They chose Poland as their target and staked on Solidarity, the first independent trade union in the socialist countries, created in the summer of 1980.

Soon, Solidarity began to receive substantial material and financial aid through the Catholic Church. Technical equipment was supplied: faxes, printing presses, copiers, computers. The money came from the CIA funds, from the American "National Endowment for Democracy", from the fund founded by J. Soros " Open society”, From Western European trade unions and from the secret accounts of the Vatican. It was then that a program was developed to bring the Soviet economy to collapse. In 1989, Solidarity won the first free parliamentary elections in the former socialist camp, and in December 1990, one of the leaders of Solidarity, an electrician at the Gdansk shipyard Lech Walesa, was elected president of Poland.

November 16 - December 29, 1989, as a result of street protests, the bloodless overthrow of the communist regime took place in Czechoslovakia as well. The revolution was started by a student demonstration, which was joined by the theatrical intelligentsia. On November 21, the opposition was supported by the Czech Cardinal. And finally, on December 29, 1989, the country's parliament elected dissident writer Vaclav Havel as president.

It was the events in Czechoslovakia that were called the "velvet revolution" (Czech. Sametova? Revoluce), which was later applied to similar methods of bloodless overthrow of power with the participation of Western capital, political technologies and "democratic institutions."

A similar scenario was successfully implemented in other countries of the former socialist camp. This scenario could not be realized only in the GDR, where Western intelligence services were unable to form any serious opposition: one of the most effective security services in the world operated in East Germany.

The most powerful pressure was exerted on the German socialist state by the Federal Republic of Germany, which, with the support of the United States, spent billions of marks and dollars to turn West Berlin, located in the very heart of East Germany, into an exemplary showcase of capitalism.

Throughout all four decades of the history of the GDR, this had an extremely strong psychological and ideological impact on the population of this republic, and gradually eroded the moral foundations of East German society. The German Democratic Republic could oppose this only with the help of its main ally.

But by the end of the 1980s. the Soviet leadership, headed by M. Gorbachev, treacherously abandoned the GDR to its fate, like other friendly regimes in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, and, moreover, welcomed the imposition of "democracies" by the West in these countries. Although it was no secret to anyone, with whose money yesterday's “prisoners of conscience” “fought against totalitarianism”. The dissident president of the then unified Czechoslovakia V. Havel spoke about this very frankly: "The West cannot remain indifferent to what is happening in the countries that the Western democracies have constantly encouraged in their struggle."

According to a similar scenario, events developed in the Soviet Union - first in the Baltic states, then in the republics of the Transcaucasus. The culmination of the controlled collapse was the August 1991 coup - a typical "velvet revolution".

A specifically Russian (Soviet) feature should be considered the fact that the "fifth column" was formed not so much from the outcasts - dissidents and refuseniks, as from the party and state leaders who held the highest posts of the country: M. Gorbachev, A. Yakovlev, E. Shevardnadze, numerous workers on the ideological front who controlled the funds mass media, the creative intelligentsia.

After the victory of the August "democratic revolution", it was the party elite who initiated the unprecedented anti-communist hysteria, which was not inferior in scope to the one that accompanied the massacres of communists in Eastern and Central Europe in 1989-90.

The law on lustration adopted in a number of countries, which in general terms boils down to prohibiting those who were formerly in the communist parties from holding positions in the civil service, was perhaps the most innocuous of the repressive measures applied to the former communists of these countries.

Another difference from the "velvet revolutions" in Europe was due to the multinational nature of our state, its complex, multi-level national-territorial structure. Therefore, in the Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus (Karabakh, Abkhazia, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya, South Ossetia), in Transnistria and in Central Asia- unlike the Baltics, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine - events began to develop not according to the "velvet", but according to the Yugoslav scenario.

The second wave of "velvet revolutions", which are usually called "colored", falls on early XXI v. They were localized exclusively in space the former USSR... The West initiated them only because the role of Russia in world politics in general and its influence in the CIS space began to increase, where it began to return what it had lost in the early 1990s. position.

It is no coincidence that the first of the "color" revolutions, the so-called. The “Rose Revolution” took place in Georgia, which has been its weakest link for all the years of the existence of the CIS. On November 2, 2003, after the parliamentary elections were held, representatives of the Georgian opposition declared them rigged, which caused a surge mass actions protest in the capital of Georgia. On November 22, opposition leaders led by M. Saakashvili disrupted the first session of the newly elected parliament and announced their victory and new course democratic development of the country ”. In January 2004, Saakashvili won the early presidential elections. Since then, the Saakashvili clique, which replaced the Shevardnadze regime, has pursued an openly pro-American policy and is directly financed by the structures of George Soros (since March 2004, the Development and Reform Fund has been paying the new Georgian leadership an additional salary of $ 10 million a year) and with the money of American taxpayers.

Events in Ukraine developed in a similar way, when in 2004, in violation of all democratic norms and the Constitution, under open pressure from the United States and European states, the third round of the presidential elections was held against the backdrop of the Orange Revolution.

The Orange Revolution began on November 22, 2004, the day after the second round of the presidential elections. That day at 10.30 a.m. on main square In Kiev, an action of civil disobedience, planned long before the announcement of the election results, began. Public opinion was warmed up in advance through all available "opposition" information channels, first of all, on the Internet, which actively instilled the idea that if V. Yushchenko does not win, then the results of the popular will are falsified and it is necessary to quit work and go to the square to hold a meeting. As a result, by the end of the first day of the "orange", a whole town of 200 tents had grown up on the Maidan, inhabited by more than 10 thousand loafers.

Every day festivities more and more turned into a carnival, the signs of which were half a million crowds, a non-stop rock festival, detachments of students boycotting studies, tea and vodka from plastic cups, fights with the "blue and white", general promiscuity, orange balls at the match " Dynamo "(Kiev) -" Roma "(Rome), orange hats and scarves, orange ribbons on shorts V. Klitschko in a fight with D. Williams.

However, it soon became clear that what was happening in Ukraine was not a breakdown of the socio-economic system, but an ordinary interception of power, a fight for a place at the trough.

Yushchenko's campaign, playing on hopes ordinary people for a change for the better, turned out to be quite technical. Yushchenko competently imposed the “power against opposition” agenda on his opponents, successfully beat the poisoning story, and collected money from Western IB investors. Berezovsky, made generous promises, effectively negotiated with L. Kuchma at the famous meeting in the Mariinsky Palace to legitimize the third round of elections in exchange for a significant increase in powers Verkhovna Rada and the actual transformation of Ukraine from a presidential-parliamentary republic into a parliamentary-presidential one.

Yushchenko has kept virtually none of his many promises. Already in 2005, GDP growth, which had reached 12% a year before the start of the presidential campaign, dropped by more than 4 times, and the inflow of foreign investment into the country decreased due to reprivatization scandals. And in the 2006 parliamentary elections, the people rejected the American proteges - the "orange" ones, having voted for the party of Yushchenko's main opponent, V. Yanukovych.

The American-style "revolution" also failed in Uzbekistan, where President I. Karimov, who had made a bet on the West, soon realized his mistake and forcibly suppressed the coup attempt in Andijan.

The Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan also failed to achieve its goals. A controlled crowd of "revolutionaries" that overthrew A. Akayev in 2005 brought K. Bakiev to power, who almost immediately positioned himself as a politician inclined towards a close alliance with Russia and other CIS states.

On April 5, 2009, after the parliamentary elections in Moldova, where the Communist Party won, protest actions by the opposition began in Chisinau, accusing the authorities of falsification. European observers recognized the elections as legal, fair, and even "worthy of imitation." The protests escalated into mass riots, during which the protesters smashed the parliament buildings and the presidential residence. Several hundred people were injured. On April 6, young people seized power in Chisinau for several hours. The demonstrators chanted: "We are Romanians." The parliament building was taken by storm. The riots ended by the morning of April 8th. The President of Moldova V. Voronin blamed Romania for the pogroms. Later, there was evidence of the involvement of the US State Department in the riots.

The reason for the success of the "velvet revolutions" of the twentieth century. - in the weakness and capitulatory policy of "non-interference" M. Gorbachev and his clique. The failure of most "color revolutions" in the post-Soviet space is directly due to the clear position of the current Russian leadership, the strengthening of the economic and military power countries, the growing influence in the CIS states of forces oriented towards Russia.

The political situation in the countries of the “victorious velvet revolutions” eloquently testifies to the true intentions of their leaders. Carried out under the banner of democratic reforms, these revolutions did not lead to the establishment of true democracy in Georgia and Ukraine. The authoritarian governments of Saakashvili and Yushchenko-Tymoshenko are finding less and less support from the population, imposing NATO membership against their will, fanning anti-Russian sentiments, infringing on the rights of the Russian-speaking population, and suppressing protest demonstrations.

A similar situation is typical for the Czech Republic and Poland, where the majority of the population protests against the installation of elements of an American missile defense system on the territory of these countries, while their governments follow all the instructions of their overseas masters, clearly illustrating the operation of the mechanism of controlled democracy.