Public Opinion toward Politics and Reforms in Czechoslovakia in 1968 Pat Lyons, Institute of Sociology v.v.i, Czech Academy of Sciences

Why is the study of Czechoslovak public opinion in 1968 important? Public versus elite interpretations of Dubček

era? Revolution or counter-revolution? Socialism versus capitalism? Differences between Czechs and Slovaks? Key events in the public mind: 1968, 1989,

1993? Legacy of 1968? Citizenship past and present?

Key research questions

What reforms did Czechoslovak public opinion support in 1968?

What were the political and electoral preferences of the public in 1968?

What was the conceptualisation of citizenship in 1968?

Sources of data on public opinion Mylnář ÚVVM survey of May 1968

(individual level) 10 national ČSSR surveys 5 surveys of the Czech public 1 survey of Slovak public 4 surveys of party members: Czech

Communist Party (KSČ) (x2), Czechoslovak Peoples Party (ČSL) (x1), Czechoslovak Socialist Party (ČSS) (x1)

Aggregate level data

Socialism or Capitalism? In early July 1968, a large majority (89%)

across the ČSSR favoured “continuation of socialist development”

Very little support for capitalism (5%) In ČSSR a maximum of 17% envisaged the

emergence of capitalism in May 1968 Capitalist aspirations centred on the

economic (36%) and political ineffectiveness (19%) of the communist government, or “other” unspecified reasons (24%)

Public Support for Government Reforms

37 30

56

31

3936

42

32

41

9

8

6

9

13 718 16

45

9 3

1

3

33

4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

All Men Women KSČ member KSČ non-memberStrongly approve Approve Disapprove Strongly dissaprove Don’t know

QUESTION: “DO YOU APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE CONTEMPORARY POLICY OF THE CZECH COMMUNIST PARTY?” (CZECH LANDS, APRIL 8-16 1968, N=2,183)

Who could guarantee democracy?

PlacementStatement 1 2 3 Don’

t know

THE LEADING ROLE OF THE REJUVENATED KSČ 43 10 8 39THE NATIONAL FRONT AND ITS DEMOCRATIC PROGRAM 21 36 16 27THE INFLUENCE OF THE LARGE SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS 1 8 22 69THE EXPRESSION OF PUBLIC OPINION IN THE PRESS, RADIO AND TELEVISION 10 25 21 44ACTIVITY OF EXISTING NON-COMMUNIST PARTIES 2 5 8 85CHOICE IN ELECTIONS AMONG INDEPENDENT PARTIES 21 15 21 43

QUESTION: “WHAT ARE THE GREATEST GUARANTEES OF SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY?” CHOOSE THREE CHOICES IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE (CZECH LANDS, AUGUST 4-15 1968, N=2,947)

Public Participation in the Reform Process?

6

14

18

20

46

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

No, various reasons (havereservations, etc.)

I have not thought aboutit

Yes, I will help in itsimplementation

Yes, I am participating

Yes, I am waiting for acall to help

QUESTION: “DO YOU WANT TO CONTRIBUTE PERSONALLY TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION PROGRAM?” (SLOVAKIA, JUNE 12-18 1968, N=1,160)

Vote choice in hypothetical elections in July ‘68

43

90

28

13

17

912

6

4

7

27 341 2

3

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

All respondents Communists Non-communistsKSČ ČSS ČSL Blank vote Don't know

QUESTION: “TO WHOM WOULD YOU GIVE YOUR VOTE IF THERE WAS AN ELECTION THIS MONTH, BASED ON THE INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES?” (CZECH LANDS, JULY 8-16 1968, N=487)

Vote choice in July ’68 with a “new party” present

35

85

24

911

810

1114

2

2

2

308

371 33

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

All respondents Communists Non-communistsKSČ ČSS ČSL New party Blank vote Don't know

QUESTION: “TO WHOM WOULD YOU GIVE YOUR VOTE IF THERE WAS AN ELECTION THIS MONTH, BASED ON THE INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES?” (CZECH LANDS, JULY 8-16 1968, N=487)

Popular perceptions of politicians in April 1968

47 43 49

24 23

19 18

10 8 11

26

24

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

All respondents Communists Non-communists

Self-interested Ordinary people People carrying out ideas Don't knowQUESTION: “WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE DO YOU THINK POLITICIANS MOST COMMONLY ARE?” (CZECH LANDS, APRIL 8-16 1968, N=2,183)

Electoral system preference among voters

Electoral System Preference All Under 40 yrs

Over 40 yrs

Member

KSC

Non-member KSC

CANDIDACY AND ELECTION OF INDEPENDENTS 15 21 10 15 15

INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY OF POLITICAL PARTIES 26 22 30 13 30

INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS 21 21 21 22 20

SOME FORM OF COMBINATION OF INDEPENDENT (GROUPS) CANDIDATES OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS

19 21 19 25 18

THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF NATIONAL FRONT CANDIDACY 9 8 11 19 6

DON’T KNOW 10 10 9 6 11TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100

QUESTION: “WHAT ELECTORAL SYSTEM WOULD BEST ENSURE EXPRESSION OF THE DEMOCRATIC WILL OF THE PEOPLE?” (CZECH LANDS, JULY 8-16 1968, N=487)

Future of Czechoslovak State in late 1968?

67 64 74

14 178

19 19 18

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Czechoslovakia Czech lands Slovakia

Will remain united Will not remain united Don't know

QUESTION: “IT WAS EVIDENT THAT OUR PEOPLE WERE UNITED IN AUGUST. DO YOU THINK THAT WE WILL REMAIN UNITED OR NOT?” (ČSSR, SEPTEMBER 14-16 1968, N=1,866)

Future Basis of Czechoslovak unity?

28

19

12

11

6

6

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Transparency and truth

Continue reforms

Remove social and national divisions

Trust in reformist leaders

Raise identity and self-reliance

Solve economic problems

Effective non-dogmatic socialism

QUESTION: “IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO MAINTAIN THE UNITY OF THE NATION?” (ČSSR, SEPTEMBER 14-16 1968, N=1,882)

Individual level data

Climate of Public Opinion, May ’68? ÚVVM interviewers in the Mylnář survey felt that

92% of respondents were truthful 53% of respondents thought that other interviewees

would answer truthfully A further 33% of respondents felt that some items

would be answered truthfully Association between both interviewer’s and

respondent’s assessments of the interviewing process is not strong (Gamma = .25, p<.001; Kendall Tau b = .16, p<.001)

Conclusion: the public opinion climate was not seen to be completely free and open by all respondents

Theoretical Approaches to CitizenshipStructural Theory Group level analysis Sociological explanation Example: Vàclav Havel (Social Capital

Model)

Choice Theory Individual level analysis Economic or rational choice explanation Example: Vàclav Klaus (General Incentives

Model)

Contemporary Theories and Models of Citizenship

Theory of Citizenship Models Explanation

Structural Civic voluntarism

Citizenship derives from individual level resources such as socio-economic status (Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995)

Equity fairness

Citizenship is a product of individuals assessment of whether their lives are better or worse than their contemporaries (Gurr 1970; Muller 1979)

Social capital Citizenship derives from a strong sense of community and inter-personal trust (Putnam 2000)

Choice Cognitive engagement

Citizenship is critically determined by level of knowledge and interest (Norris et al. 1999; Dalton 2002)

General incentives

Individuals cooperate within one another and hence act as citizens because there are instrumental or affective reasons for doing so (Whiteley and Seyd 2002)

Mlynář Model of Citizenship (1968)Principal components of democracy

Key concepts Indicators of citizens attitudes and behaviour

Political orientation

Pluralism Believe in a system of politics founded on competing interest groups rather than centralised decision-making

Liberalism Support free speech, a free media, and right of assembly

Competitivity Hold a centralised or diffuse conception of power

Tolerance Support respect for minority opinions and rights

Equality Believe in equality of opportunity rather than position in society

Political activity

Current activities Level and type of current participation in all types of organisations or associations

Future activities Willing to be a candidate in all types of elections, adoption of a critical orientation, interested in politics and current affairs

Level of passivity Not willing to be active in politics, tend to accept the status quo, have no interest in political affairs

Main Dimensions of Political Attitudes in May ‘68Variables Liberalism Participation Pluralism Efficacy

Q.23: Multiparty competition secures democratisation 0.74 Q.19: Support political competition 0.71 Q.13: Support multiparty elections and non-KSC/ KSS governments 0.68 Q.15: Tolerate expression of non-socialist opinions 0.55 Q.16: Support defence of civil rights through strikes 0.46 Q.12: Support having interest groups 0.43 Q.26: Condemn people who avoid participating in public life -0.40 Q.2: State can suppress non-socialist opinions -0.44 Q.4: State can restrict press, free speech and right of assembly -0.48 Q.14: Politics can influence all aspects of public life -0.49 Q.6: Candidate in regional elections 0.91 Q.7: Candidate in national elections 0.85 Q.5: Candidate in local elections 0.79 Q.18: Politics concerns me personally 0.57 Q.20: Take public stand on basis of personal opinions 0.55 Q.10: Press should publish the minutes of KSC /KSS meetings 0.45 Q.8: Dual public and party functions 0.43 Q.1: Press should publish minutes of government /parliamentary meetings 0.34 Q.11: Socialism defined by decree and not discussion -0.41 Q.22: Media censorship of minorities -0.41 Q.24: Differential salaries based on skill -0.49 Q.25: Difficult to understand current political situation 0.81 Q.21: Difficult to decide which rules of civic and social life are correct 0.80 Variance Explained (%) 13.9 10.7 8.0 6.6 Total Variance Explained 39.2 Eigenvalues 3.2 2.5 1.8 1.5 KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.8 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 3995.4 Approx. Chi-Square df 253

Sig. <.001

Structural vs. Choice Models of Citizenship

Civic Voluntarism Model Resources: Age, education, type of

work, income, accomodation type, occupation

Sense of political efficacy: Understand current situation; know “correct” social and civic norms (internal)

Mobilisation: Organisational membership

Psychological engagement: Politics is important at a personal level

Partisanship: Membership of KSC /KSS

General Incentives Model Sense of Political efficacy:

Understand current situation; know “correct” social and civic norms (internal)

Collective benefits: Multipartyism secures democracy

Costs of participation: Obligations /implications of political activity

Process incentives: Open media, political discussion not decrees, interest group competition

Outcome incentives: Respect for opinions of political rivals (non-democrats should not be punished)

Altruism: Citizens should participate in public life

Social norms: Attitudes toward socialism

CITIZENSHIP (THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE) Rights, freedom and equality (b) Obligation to

volunteer(a)Attitudes towards political power (d) Potential

political participation

Civic Voluntarism Model Comparison

0.18

1.29

-0.38

-0.17

-0.17

1.13

1.58

1.29

0.11

-0.37

-0.12

-0.15

0.13

-0.86

1.02

-0.62

-0.04

-0.23

1.44

0.65

0.60

0.31

-0.18

-0.24

0.19

0.10

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

[PARTISANSHIP] Member of KSC/ KSS

[ENGAGEMENT] Political interest **

[MOBILISATION] Organisation membership ***

[EFFICACY] Uncertain about political situation

[EFFICACY] Uncertain of 'correct' civic/ social norms

[RESOURCE] Collective worker *

[RESOURCE] Other employee

[RESOURCE] Worker

[RESOURCE] Accomodation type ***

[RESOURCE] Income ***

[RESOURCE] Occupation type

[RESOURCE] Education

[RESOURCE] Age **SlovakiaCzech Lands

Dependent variable: Willingness to be a candidate in an election (13 point scale)Model estimate using OLS regression, Czech lands Adj. R2=.09, Slovakia Adj. R2=.09, Note * p.05, ** p.01, ***p.001 (significance refers to Czechoslovak model)

General Incentives Model Comparison

-0.22

-0.27

-0.12

-0.41

0.06

-0.06

0.05

-0.06

0.55

-0.12

0.00

0.35

-0.33

0.00

-0.06

-0.54

-0.07

-0.09

0.03

-0.01

-0.23

0.03

-0.02

0.12

-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

[EFFICACY] Uncertain of 'correct' civic/ social norms

[EFFICACY] Uncertain about political situation **

[COLLECTIVE BENEFITS] Democratisation secure with multiparty system

[COLLECTIVE BENEFITS] Take public stand against disliked opinions ***

[PROCESS INCENTIVES] Social defined through discussion, not decree

[PROCESS INCENTIVES] Support free competition between interest groups

[PROCESS INCENTIVES] Favour multiparty competition and government formation

[OUTCOME INCENTIVES] No punishment for those opposing democratisation

[GROUP INCENTIVES] Support censorship

[GROUP INCENTIVES] Minorities should be silent

[SOCIAL NORMS] State can silence non-socialist opinions

[SOCIAL NORMS] Allow expression of non-socialist opinions **

SlovakiaCzech Lands

Dependent variable: Willingness to be a candidate in an election (13 point scale)Model estimate using OLS regression, Czech lands Adj. R2=.09, Slovakia Adj. R2=.09, Note * p.05, ** p.01, ***p.001 (significance refers to Czechoslovak model)

Summary of Modelling Results

Structure Theory Choice TheoryCivic Voluntarism Model General Incentives Model

Czech lands Slovakia Czech lands Slovakia Resources Political Efficacy X Mobilisation Political Interest XPartisanship X

Collective Benefits

Costs of Participation

X X

Process Incentives

X X

Outcome Incentives

X X

Group Incentives

Social Norms X

Model Fit (Adj. R2)

.09 .09 .09 .09

CONCLUSIONS …

What reforms were supported in ’68? Public supported reforming

socialism - little support for revolution to create capitalism

Public supported breaking Communist Party’s monopoly on power, i.e. creating political pluralism

Improve economic performance through use of Workers’ Councils

Partisan/Electoral preferences in ’68? Popular support for the unifying role of the National

Front form of governance KSČ would have been the largest party had there been

free elections (as promised in September 1968) ČSL and ČSS did not attract widespread support Impact of a “new party” would have been limited Public wanted opposition parties to accept KSČ

hegemony and offer pragmatic rather than ideological criticism

Public favoured an electoral system that ensured political pluralism (and also control political corruption)

KSC preferred a majoritarian electoral system, while ČSL and ČSS wanted a proportional party list system

Concepts of Citizenship in ’68? Emphasis within KSČ was on political orientation

and participation (Mylnář survey research agenda) Concept of citizenship were similar in Czech lands

and Slovakia Structural and Choice Theories of Citizenship

appear to be equally applicable to the data Few difference in the Civic Voluntarism and General

Incentives Models tested IMPLICATION: Political attitudes may not have been

largely different across the Czech lands and Slovakia once socio-economic differences are taken into account

More research is required to test this preliminary result

Future Research … Historiography – influence of elites vs. citizens Assemble more survey data from 1968 era (if

possible?) Construct a more detailed analysis of the structure

of political attitudes (SEM) Explore Czech and Slovak differences with regard

to political attitudes and citizenship Undertake a “replication” and “extension”

survey in May 2008 to facilitate comparison across time, and establish the relative importance of the “Prague Spring”