Czechoslovakia: The Short Goodbye [Hardcover]

This book has a number of weakness. It is not very well written, and Innes is not very good in detailing the complicated proposals in economic reform or national unity and their path. The only primary sources are contemporary newspapers, and there is a certain lack of depth. This is all too common in political scientists and sociologists and it leads to a rather indulgent treatment of Slovak nationalism. The first chapter is a potted summary of Czechoslovakian history until 1989 and there is little critical discussion of the nature of Slovakian national identity. The image of Slovaks to many outsiders is that they are basically more rural, more Catholic, less hip Czechs who speak a slightly different language. Since Slovakia has become more urban and more secular over the past century, what does it mean to be a Slovak? The actual historical details of national consciousness are not really discussed, they are simply assumed. The process as discussed in the brilliant, if flawed works by Linda Colley on Britain and Eugen Weber on French peasants, is not really detailed. One thinks of Drew Gilpin Faust's book on Confederate Nationalism or Gary Cohen's book on nationality in Prague as better examples of analysis.

There is therefore a certain lack of critical rigor in discussing Slovak nationalism. The problem is not that nationalism made the breakup of the country inevitable, but that Slovak Nationalism is not really critiqued clearly. Czech attitudes towards Slovaks are mostly summarized, and mostly at the level of high politics. It is a bit unconvincing to think that the attitudes of Czech dissidents and Czech economic reformers were quite as simple minded as Innes portrays. It is true that Slovaks were not the contented rural hicks who blandly accepted Communism while Czech dissidents heroically suffered. But did the Czechs really believe this self-serving version that Innes imputes to them. Their ideology is never really analyzed. Although Innes provides reams of evidence of Meciar's opportunism, authoritarianism and incompetence she seems to think it condescending of Czechs to point this out. She does not really explain why Slovaks needed a veto over major legislation. Legislation required approval by the Czechoslovak version of a Senate, in which Slovakia had half the seats. Why was that insufficient? Rather than come up with programs that would ensure that Slovakia's historical relative poverty would be compensated, Slovak politician seemed to be more interested over symbols and acquiring power for its own sake. (Would it have killed them to rename the country "the Federal Republic of Czechoslovakia"?) Leading politicians seemed unduly sympathetic to the old Quisling state of Father Tiso. At one point Innes supports one proposal in which the legal continuity of the Czechoslovak state would be abrogated and two nominally independent countries would form a loose federation. Such a move insulted the Czechs, revived fears of Tisoite authoritarianism and led people to assume that Slovak politicians were much more interested in independence than they really were.

There are other weaknesses in the book. There is little discussion of civil society, or the rest of society period. Unions, Churches, Business lobbies, women's groups, how Czechoslovaks actually carried out democratic politics is not really illuminated in a picture of what is largely tedious and unduly complicated high politics. There is no discussion of intermarriage or language. Still the portrait is broadly convincing, and one should read Innes' account of Klaus' brave new Czech Republic, with its corruption and dogmatic refusal of regulation, Klaus' bullying suggestion that all who oppose him are Communists, and some of the lowest voter turnout rates in Europe. The situation in Slovakia is even worse.