|
|
30 March 1995
Doc. 7269
REPORT on the social sciences and the challenge of transition
(Rapporteur: Mr BERGER, Switzerland, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers Group)
Summary
The changes currently taking place in the countries of central and eastern Europe, partly as a result of the collapse of the communist regime and its totalitarian ideology and partly as the side effects of the transition towards democracy, a market economy and the globalisation of economic competitiveness, demand an overall examination that could mobilise the knowledge generated by the social sciences.
Dedicated as they are to the study of the behaviour of individuals and groups, as well as of the economy, civil society, the state and its institutions, the social sciences are at the strategic crossroads of changes. Since they are tools that can guarantee people's rights and create the machinery to safeguard democracy, if manipulated by the authorities they would inevitably become less reliable and bias the definition of political choices.
The independence and objectivity of the social sciences are the two preconditions for the necessary groundwork before bringing about a civic culture and introducing the machinery to make a country's transition to another form of society less painful.
I. Draft recommendation
1. The Assembly is aware that the transition from totalitarian communist regimes to democracy in the countries of central and eastern Europe is a situation unprecedented in history. This transition cannot take place purely on the basis of existing western theories and methodologies.
2. Those countries which have embarked on the process of reform must equip themselves to build a society based on democracy, a market economy, and social welfare, giving due emphasis to all the political, economic, social and cultural aspects of this transition. The social sciences can play a decisive role in this respect, by generating information and analyses which enable fairer choices and relevant policies to be made to improve society.
3. The social sciences represent a strategic point of convergence in the transformation process, as they are concerned with the study of the behaviour of individuals and groups, the economy, civil society, the state and its institutions. Although they may appear to be less exact and deductive than the natural sciences, the social sciences must be based on quantifiable data and methodology involving other disciplines. By the same token, the exact sciences have an increasing need for the human sciences in order to root their choices in the needs of the population and the development of the planet.
4. The importance of this global approach to the social sciences is becoming increasingly clear in the context of the major political upheavals and scientific and technological breakthroughs now occurring worldwide, which are profoundly changing the traditional notions of how society is organised. Consequently, countries in transition and western countries alike need to co-operate closely in developing research and training in social sciences, in order to meet the challenges of globalisation.
5. The Assembly is concerned by the fact that the possibilities for the social sciences in countries in transition to carry out work corresponding to the needs of society are currently limited by insufficient infrastructure and human and financial resources.
6. Consequently, the Assembly requests the Committee of Ministers to invite the governments of the member states, where applicable:
i. to acknowledge that it is dubious to build a society based on democracy, the rule of law and respect of human rights without the active participation of the social sciences;
ii. to promote the social sciences, from a theoretical, methodological and institutional point of view, with the aim of creating a society better geared to the needs of its citizens;
iii. to provide the necessary infrastructure and resources, bearing in mind that the results of this research will not be felt immediately;
iv. to encourage the revival of a civil culture, in order to restore to individuals freedom of thought and freedom to criticise, by enhancing the status of the social sciences in secondary and higher education, and in particular in educating society's senior managers and leaders;
v. to promote the decompartmentalisation of universities, in a spirit of pluralism and interdisciplinarity, so that they become the centre of intellectual life once more. New courses better suited to the socio-economic realities should be introduced in order to prepare young people more effectively for the market economy. At the same time, foundations needs to be laid for a modern civil service adapted to these new requirements, by reinforcing the administrative and legal training of future executive officials;
vi. to safeguard the role of the social sciences as means for guaranteeing the social rights and social needs of the population and creating machinery to protect democracy. To this end, government policy needs to be reshaped to enable the sciences to function in an autonomous, independent and democratic fashion;
vii. to ensure that there is no manipulation of the social sciences and that the roles of government and the sciences are clearly distinct and autonomous: the information furnished by the social sciences for policy-making purposes must be reliable but responsibility for making decisions belongs to political decision-makers;
viii. to stimulate, for this purpose, comparative research based on statistical data and to perfect the techniques used for surveys and analyses, in order to create the necessary conditions for a more objective analysis of social phenomena;
ix. to develop close collaboration with industry and the services sector in a spirit of open-mindedness to all humanist, ethical, social and ecological problems raised by modern society;
x. to facilitate the integration of scientists from countries in transition into the international scientific community by helping them to become members of organisations such as the European Science Foundation;
xi. to maintain an ongoing, constructive dialogue between the political decision-makers and the scientific community in order to be able to determine research priorities and take full advantage of the opportunities for international collaboration in this field, such as Unesco's MOST (Management of Social Transformations) programme;
xii. to encourage different international or national organisations to contribute to the development of programmes in the field of social sciences.
7. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. promote, through its intergovernmental and interparliamentary co-operation programmes, and in the framework of the Council of Europe's Demosthenes and Demosthenes-B programmes and of the programmes of other international institutions, the development of projects enabling maximum exchange between the social scientists of member states. Joint projects, colloquies and symposia, co-operation between universities, and the mobility of researchers and students are key elements in this strategy for co-operation and mutual enrichment;
ii. continue and extend, in this connection, the Legislative Reform Programme for Higher Education which has been implemented in several countries, so that it encompasses the restructuring of scientific institutions which do not belong to university systems, such as academies and independent research institutes;
iii. examine more closely the problem of brain drain, following the main lines of Recommendation No. R (95) 7 of the Committee of Ministers on brain drain in the sectors of higher education and research, which constitutes an excellent basis, with a view to drawing up an international convention.
II. Explanatory memorandum
by Mr BERGER
1. Introduction
Just five years ago, the world was in a state of euphoria in the wake of the "democratic revolutions" in eastern Europe. However, it was not long before euphoria gave way to a cold realisation that after forty-five years of communism, whole societies would have to be reinvented.
Moreover, these societies would not be mere copies of western models, but would have to reflect the cultural and historical development of the region.
As Ioan Mihailescu has commented: "The situation in the countries of eastern Europe is an entirely new one; no major theory exists which can give an account of the transition from totalitarian socialism to democracy. Western theoretical and methodological approaches are necessary, but insufficient to explain the new economic, social and political realities of eastern Europe. A substantial effort is needed for the elaboration of new approaches. The scientific potential for making such an effort is admittedly limited, but it is possible to embark on it".1
Reinventing a society requires the active participation of the social sciences, including the human sciences. It would not be desirable for the new democracies and their leaders to focus solely on the drive towards a market economy to the detriment of the vast range of human, social and ecological aspects that any democratic society must also take into account. In several transition countries, however, the numerous political parties are generating an extremely mixed bag of ideas and programmes. In many cases the incoherence of their policies reflects a new reality more complex than the one they had imagined after decades of totalitarian oppression.
The importance of the social sciences is becoming even plainer as our world's socio-political context changes. In the last few years, the extraordinary gains made in science and technology, coupled with the internationalisation and globalisation of certain social and economic problems, have opened up a new dialogue in a political class where the roles were as yet strictly defined. This being so, the social sciences in the new European democracies can no longer develop in isolation from the major currents of social research in Europe and the rest of the world.
The social sciences might be defined as disciplines which are more in touch than others with the sensitive areas of transformation: human personality, civil society, the state and its institutions. They are not exact sciences. Federico Mayor has said that their role is to provide the "missing link" between thought and action.2
In the words of Professor Kubiak, "Problems arising during the process of transformation belong [...] to the interests not only of sociology, political science, psychology, pedagogy and the science of administration and management, but also to philosophy, history and legal studies."3
Although the social sciences are not exact sciences, the two go hand in hand. The results of scientific discoveries, whether in the "pure" sciences or in the social sciences, increasingly affect everybody, with implications for their daily life and, in the longer term, for the life of the planet. Moreover, Mr Mayor, Director General of Unesco, informed the Committee on Science and Technology that for the next six years the social sciences and the exact sciences will be covered by a joint Unesco programme.
The social sciences had raised great expectations in the 1960s and 1970s, when they were considered almost as rigorous sciences, a kind of social engineering. This trend gave way to a surge of liberalism in the 1980s, since when the social sciences have been rather neglected. However, the serious problems facing the world today show that this is no longer possible.
Neglected and often outlawed by totalitarian regimes, the social sciences should not be regarded as a panacea, capable of generating rapid change in society. The social and human sciences pursue long-term programmes. It is their job to give people back the freedoms they have lost, such as freedom of thought and freedom to criticise. In short, they must teach people to value freedoms and respect them.
Another important question concerns the relationship between the social sciences and government, to which their nature makes them very close. There is always a risk that the social sciences will be used for partisan political purposes, not only in the countries in transition but also in countries with well-established democracies. There is a long tradition of decision-makers using experts' analyses to provide post-hoc justification of decisions already taken.
However, it would be undemocratic to give scientists decision-making powers, which are for the people's elected representatives alone.
The solution is for the decision-makers to understand how research functions and to recognise the autonomy of science, and for researchers to understand the constraints on the decision-makers. Politicians also have to acknowledge that science requires patience, and that results cannot be achieved overnight. However, it would be suicidal to reduce scientific grants, as it is impossible to know which field will provide the breakthrough capable of transforming society. This is the difference between democracy and totalitarianism, which does not accept uncertainty and wants to be able to plan everything.
The social sciences continue to be faced with the problem of responsibility: when they are funded from the public purse, they are accountable. Consequently, their role is to generate information which can be used by decision-makers. The best way to reconcile science and government is for both sides to know each other and work together, while keeping their distance and their autonomy.
All of this may look like political comment, but this report's primary goal is to explain the role of the social sciences, and particularly the role they can play in the transition to the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, the market economy (or an alternative model) and civil society.
It should not be forgotten that the industrialised countries, which are in the throes of change too, have been severely hit by social problems. The aim is therefore to reach the whole of society, including all areas of politics, economics and science.
2. The current state of the social sciences in countries in transition
2.1. In the wake of the revolutions
The events of 1989 released an unprecedented wave of hope. People visualised the end of dictatorship, an end to the hermetic division between eastern and western Europe, and with it an end to the Cold War and the tension it had engendered.
In the countries of eastern Europe, still overjoyed at regaining their freedom, the mood was largely one of optimism. It was generally accepted that rapid, far-reaching change of the existing economic, social and political order was necessary. But few people asked, particularly at the beginning, what kind of system should be set up in its place. There only seemed to be one real option: the western model.
Inevitably, once the period of upheaval was over, people began to turn their thoughts to reconstruction, and this was when the problems began to make themselves felt. Five years on, it has become abundantly clear that reviving a society after several decades of communist rule is difficult, often entailing dramatic confrontation and in some cases bloodshed.
Western countries, themselves in the throes of economic recession, were unenthusiastic about investing massively in countries with uncertain futures and imbalanced economies which were ill-equipped to compete on world markets.
We have seen a re-emergence of the historical divide between central Europe (Roman Catholic or Protestant countries which were influenced by the liberal ideas of the Renaissance and which, like former Czechoslovakia, had had at least a short experience of democracy and are closer philosophically and culturally to the West than to Russia) and eastern and south-eastern Europe (the Orthodox countries).
In some parts of the east, nationalism and "national communism" are gaining ground.
The new democratic governments of several central and eastern European countries (many of which were initially liberal in character) were forced to take courageous — but often draconian — measures to bring their financial systems and economic structures into line with the world market. The approach varied from one country to another. Often the result was hyperinflation and virtually total collapse of production capacity, with spectacular rises in unemployment and crime as the consequence. A certain collective discontentment ensued, leading to the emergence of protest movements. There was a growing feeling of nostalgia for a past that was all too often glorified and its negative sides ignored.
The newly elected reformers' main objective was radical change in the relationship between individuals and society. Essentially, this implied the re-introduction of individual freedom.
However, the implosion of the communist regimes left these societies in a difficult socio-psychological situation. For example, the communist system's legacy in terms of public attitudes — which are notoriously difficult to change — is amply illustrated by the invariably negative attitude one encounters towards the state (because mistrust was the norm during forty years of communist rule), the administration and institutions, and the very low morale in the public sector, which represented more than 90% of the economy in some countries. These attitudes are typical of societies in which the vast majority of citizens had no civic rights, or could not exercise them in practice.
The public at large, and indeed many members of the new elite, are ill-informed when it comes to politics and economics, and are therefore easily manipulated. This goes some way to explain the rising tide of nationalism and xenophobia, which are also a way of expressing a perfectly understandable need to be different, after the imposed uniformity of socialist internationalism.
The new constitutions have attempted to create a new relationship between individuals and society by safeguarding the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and consistently promoted by the Council of Europe.
But new constitutions are just a beginning. Vaclav Havel4 has said that genuine revolution implies the re-introduction of traditional parliamentary democracy, and that this reconstruction can take place at three levels: individuals, participation and cultural pluralism. The scientific community, and the social sciences in particular, have an essential contribution to make to this process.
2.2. The conditions in which the social sciences function
The social sciences have always been closely associated with politics, even under communist rule. Some scientists sought to legitimise these regimes; others helped to bring them down.5 In some countries the latter group was influential (although never dominant); in others it was virtually non-existent. As a result, the scientific quality of work varies a great deal throughout the region.6
Even the researchers who proved scientifically that it was impossible to improve or reform communist society, and contributed significantly to its downfall, are somewhat perplexed today. As Gyorgy Enyde said about Hungary: "Despite these achievements, there is a feeling of failed responsibility among social scientists. The majority of social scientists worked to reform socialism, to change the model of socialism but not to reject the system entirely. In the last analysis, they tried to serve a lost cause, and although their studies accumulated a lot of precious knowledge on Hungarian society, the reforms failed".7
"There is also a professional feeling of failure. Social scientists did not forecast the events of 1989."8
Notwithstanding a great deal of goodwill, some researchers are "unable to plan a research project and carry it out on their own, establish priorities for study, defend an underprivileged social group or fight for their convictions. The reasons are both subjective and objective".9
It is also clear that social research needs far outweigh the human and financial resources available.
In recent years, the social sciences have also had to contend increasingly with "spontaneous sociology", which has enjoyed something of a boom in the media.
There are two main reasons why the social sciences, which have a crucial part to play in reconstruction, are in a very difficult situation after forty-five years of communism:
—id eological reasons: "The contribution they might have made to solving social problems was not recognised, since all 'solutions' stemmed from the 'wisdom' of a single political party". 10Although the situation has now changed, the political parties, which have not yet had time to clock up substantial achievements either in government or opposition, are too often tempted to use — indeed, manipulate — the social sciences to justify their actions.Th
The social sciences, for their part, are ill-equipped to resist ideological interference of this type for:
—fi nancial reasons: everybody accepts that scientific research is important, but few individuals, companies and institutions are able or willing to spend money on it. The reason for this is simple: the emphasis today is on investments with a short-term economic and business return.As
As a result, scientific researchers have to function without the one thing which forms the backbone of their work: information. They cannot afford to subscribe to specialist journals, data networks, etc., or to engage in large-scale research.
For this reason, much of the work currently being carried out in this field is narrowly focused and done to order, emphasising practical applications (opinion polls, for example, have proved popular), and contributing little to theoretical research.
The numerous private institutes — working either independently or for political interests — are in the same situation.
This sector has been one of those worst affected by "intellectual unemployment" and the brain-drain, with many researchers either emigrating or switching to the private sector.
Another interesting phenomenon is that many of these people have become actively involved in politics and now form part of their countries' political elites. The practical know-how they are now acquiring may be very useful if they ever decide to return to the social sciences, but for the moment their knowledge and skills are sorely missed at a time when the social sciences are being restructured.
It was thought at first that the West would do a lot to help solve these financial problems through the scientific co-operation programmes that had been set up. Today, central and eastern European researchers have come to a sad conclusion: they believe these programmes are designed to ensure that the funds invested are channelled back to the West. Most projects have been entrusted to western experts, although many researchers in eastern Europe, and particularly the younger ones, are brimming with enthusiasm and energy and keen to apply their skills to important work. They also say that the cost of giving them the facilities they need to carry out major research would be less than the fees of some western specialists.
Even when eastern Europeans are entrusted with large-scale projects, they are underpaid by comparison with their western counterparts.
3. The social sciences: a potential catalyst for change in society
In short, the social sciences are facing a dual challenge in this transition period:
1. Their reconstruction, which entails a twofold change: theoretical and methodological on the one hand and institutional on the other.
2. The three-pronged task that Professor Kubiak envisages for them:11
—to help replace "simple, direct, intuitive and thoughtless human reaction to the environment" by criticism and invention, cognitive efforts and scientific knowledge;—
—to ensure that the transition to a market economy and the construction of a society founded on its principles does not take place to the detriment of the population's social rights and needs;—
—to create the necessary climate for the emergence of a civil society and the establishment of mechanisms to safeguard democratic methods of government.Un
Universities and research centres — which have not been unaffected by decades of more or less explicit subservience to totalitarian rule — are the bodies most closely
concerned by the first challenge. Here, renewal is conditional on structural and staff changes. Real change, however, will take years to accomplish. Avoiding overt political control is not in itself enough — these institutions must, above all, adopt new attitudes.
At the same time, despite everything, universities and research centres must be actively involved in introducing the rule of law, a market economy (or, better still, an alternative to this model), parliamentary democracy and civil society.
—Th e rule of law and a reformed administrative system are essential conditions for the transition (although they are not sufficient in themselves). It will also be necessary to replace those judges and members of the nomenklatura who are most tainted by association with the communist regime. Law must be one of the priorities of the university system (constitutional law, public business law, international business law, etc.), and major efforts will have to be made to train high-level civil servants.—
—It is absolutely essential to recruit teachers who are familiar with the workings of the market economy. A thorough review of all concepts, beginning with terminology, is needed, but above all, the former communist countries must develop new management training facilities, modern economic infrastructure and a highly trained workforce so as to attract local and foreign capital. At the same time, the social sciences must endeavour to develop an alternative to market economics in its purely capitalist form.—
—La st, but by no means least, are the challenges posed by democratisation and educational reform, which means giving back to individuals the freedoms which communism took away from them, particularly the freedom to think critically.Un
Unfortunately, progress in the areas of administration, the workings of institutions, and educational structures and curricula has been very limited to date.12
4. Recommendations and conclusions
Accordingly, if we are rise to this double challenge by reforming domestic structures and making a vital contribution to the transition to a new society, a number of conditions must be met:
1. the social sciences must be upgraded in the general education system. The communists manipulated the goals of the social sciences for propaganda purposes, precisely because they did not want people to develop critical faculties;
2. universities should decompartmentalise and become receptive to the changes in society in order to promote new attitudes, resume their role as the true focal point of intellectual life and help create a civil culture. To achieve this, courses must be adapted to reflect the new socio-economic and political realities. A revamped university curriculum should enable young people to understand the workings of a market economy, parliamentary democracy and new sociological concepts;
3. at the same time, special efforts should be made to encourage education in democratic values from an early age, starting in the home, thus preparing the ground for healthy development of the social sciences;
4. indoctrination must be eradicated by ensuring that the scope of subjects taught is extended, a better balance achieved and equal emphasis given to different interpretations. This will inevitably mean decentralising government policy towards schools and universities. Head teachers and university principals will have to be given more autonomy. Only universities which are run in an autonomous, independent and democratic way can contribute to the establishment and generalisation of mechanisms to safeguard democratic forms of government and absolute respect for fundamental human rights;
5. interdisciplinary co-operation between the social sciences on the one hand and between social sciences and the exact sciences on the other should be promoted to help the ruling class and the population at large to understand and interpret social reality. Interdisciplinary co-operation should be regarded as an indispensable instrument enabling the complex problems facing modern societies to be tackled;
6. measures should be taken to stimulate student and research exchanges and international co-operation, in order not to impose western methods on the countries in transition, but working on an equal footing to improve the quality of life in general and ensure the well-being of all Europeans. Frequent exchanges, joint projects, colloquies and symposia, as well as inter-university co-operation and student/researcher mobility, will significantly increase the social sciences' ability to cope with any problems, and resist ideological pressures, whatever their source;
7. investments must be made to improve and modernise university infrastructure and methodology. Comparative research must be based on reliable statistical data which allow both temporal and spatial comparisons to be made (for instance, by promoting new ways of surveying public opinion and consumer behaviour and assessing media audiences). This in general is essential and crucial for further evolution and progress of social sciences and in particular for a more objective analysis of social phenomena;
8. the social sciences should be invited to work closely with industry, with a view to encouraging new ways of thinking and solving problems. In this field as in others, taking account of humanist, social and even ecological aspects is an essential part of finding the right solutions to the complex problems which face us. While a committed effort on the part of the social sciences is not in itself sufficient to achieve this, it is vital to work towards the desired ends with an open mind and with no constraint, if profound human needs are not to be obscured.
Substantial financial resources will be needed if these objectives are to be achieved. The initial aim will be to bring the pauperisation of university lecturers to an end, and thus to stop the brain drain to the West and the private sector.
In addition to its co-operation programmes with the countries in transition, the Council of Europe has put forward a range of measures to combat the brain drain in higher education and research. The strategy consists of structured exchange and co-operation programmes, including the funding of short-term (but not long-term) mobility.
Politicians, the business community and the unions are all in favour of research in the social sciences, but they are unwilling or unable to fund it. The only solution available at present is international scientific co-operation under the aegis of specialist bodies, as exemplified by Unesco's MOST Programme.13
This will enable universities to repair the damage of communist "normalisation" and produce a new elite which is lucid, flexible and creative, able to analyse and make good choices but also — and above all — endowed with critical faculties. This creation of the new civil society will primarily be a product of a new application of social sciences, this time to benefit the new societies of central and eastern Europe.
Reporting committee: Committee on Science and Technology.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.
Reference: Doc. 7092, Reference No. 1949 of 28 June 1994.
Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 20 March 1995.
Members of the committee: Mr Roseta (Chairman), Mrs Terborg, Mr Birraux (Vice-Chairpersons), Mrs Baastrup, MM. Bartodziej, Bauer, Berger, Bogár, Mrs Brenden, MM. Caccia (Alternate: Jagmetti), Cunliffe, De Decker, Dees, Dumont, Galley, Golu, Gregory, Guía, Guidi, Gusenbauer, Mrs Hoffmann, MM. Hurta, Inönü, Johansson, Konstandinidis, Leers, Lekberg, Lenzer, López Valdivielso, Łuczak (Alternate: Rewaj), Maass, Metelko, Mitolo (Alternate: Lorenzi), Mocioi, Moran, Pecriaux, Poças Santos, Požéla, Prokeš, Mrs Ragnarsdóttir, MM. Speroni, Sinka, Mrs Stiborova, MM. Szabó, Theis, Sir Donald Thompson, MM. Jack Thompson, Tiuri, Toshev, Vrettos, Yürür.
N.B. The names of those members who took part in the vote are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Perin et Mrs Theophilova.
1 1Ioan Mihailescu, The social sciences in a changing Romania, International Social Science Journal, No. 131, February 1992.
2 2Federico Mayor, The role of the social sciences in a changing Europe, International Social Science Journal, No. 132, 1992, p. 279.
3 1H. Kubiak: Social sciences and the challenge of transition: the Polish case. Study presented to the Committee on Science and Technology of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. (AS/Science (1994) 7). Quotation p. 2.
4 1See K. Pankhurst: Education and the cultural transformations in Eastern Europe.
5 2Gyorgy Enyde. Social sciences and the political transition in Hungary (1992). International Social Science Journal, No. 131, 1992.
6 1Ioan Mihailescu. The social sciences in a changing Romania. International Social Science Journal, No. 131, February 1992.
7 2Gyorgy Enyde. Social sciences and the political transition in Hungary (1992) In: International Social Science Journal, No. 131, 1992.
8 3Idem.
9 4Ioan Michaelescu. The social sciences in a changing Romania. International Social Science Journal, No. 131, February 1992.
10 5Idem.
11 1H. Kubiak, Social sciences and the challenge of transition: the Polish case. Study presented to the Committee on Science and Technology of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (AS/Science (1994) 7, pp. 3 and 4).
12 1Democratisation and reform of secondary education in Central and Eastern Europe, p. 6 (Bialobrzegi, Poland, 12-14 November 1992).
13 1MOST (Management of Social Transformations) is an international comparative research programme set up by Unesco to promote social science research in areas considered by governments as high priority and relevant to their needs. The primary goal of the programme is to improve the quality of independent research, with an emphasis on the transfer of relevant scientific knowledge to decision-makers.